REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The truth: It's too late. We will go extinct, very soon. Enjoy the time you have left.

POSTED BY: REAVERFAN
UPDATED: Saturday, September 7, 2019 10:42
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9405
PAGE 1 of 11

Wednesday, February 13, 2019 7:59 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Alas, too true. People are gleefully promoting the destruction of the very systems that keep us alive. They think that "saving the whales" is anti-human when in reality it's all about our survival. When I worked (for an environmental regulatory agency) one of my colleagues - who was very pro-environment - went off to dive in exotic reefs and birdwatch in rainforests just to see everything before it was all gone. He bugged out to Costa Rica long before retirement age just to soak it all in. I used to think he was way too pessimistic, but now I think he was just ahead of the curve.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 13, 2019 8:08 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Don't worry man. Overpopulation is the problem. There's a plan for that.

You and I might not be part of it though, at least not on the good end of it anyhow.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 14, 2019 4:00 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So REAVERBOT ... are you surprised that I agree with you post? Because I do, yanno. But youve been so focused on treating some people - me included- as "enemy" that you never noticed that I might be on your side. If you had stopped attacking long enugh to listen, you might have seen an ally instead of an enemy

. Instead, you spent an inordinate amount of time arguing with a fiction.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 14, 2019 9:28 AM

REAVERFAN


Politicians will not do what's necessary.

The Coming Collapse
It is impossible for any doomed population to grasp how fragile the decayed financial, social and political system is on the eve of implosion.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/05/21/coming-collapse?gclid=Cj
wKCAiAwJTjBRBhEiwA56V7q85UTlyXlUQljt3vAOLj3hHqimPy5XTqxXRepeha5hI-JBBpT6ZmRxoCBJwQAvD_BwE


Political inaction is the "why."

Ecological collapse is the "how." We are rendering the planet unlivable, and the wheels are already in motion.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 14, 2019 9:42 AM

REAVERFAN


Bill Gates tweeted an infographic to his 46 million followers showing that the world has been getting better and better. “This is one of my favourite infographics,” he wrote. “A lot of people underestimate just how much life has improved over the past two centuries.”
https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/1086662632587907072

Of the six graphs – developed by Max Roser of Our World in Data – the first has attracted the most attention by far. It shows that the proportion of people living in poverty has declined from 94% in 1820 to only 10% today. The claim is simple and compelling.

It’s a powerful narrative. And it’s completely wrong.

See also: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/2/12/18215534/bill-gates-globa
l-poverty-chart


From the article:

What Roser’s numbers actually reveal is that the world went from a situation where most of humanity had no need of money at all to one where today most of humanity struggles to survive on extremely small amounts of money.

You moved a subsistence farmer to a slum. Congratulations!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 14, 2019 9:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


REAVERBOT, let me toss a little philosophy into the conversation.

The destruction of the ecosphere can be described by answering "what" and "how", but the reasons for humans promoting - or at least allowing- the destruction of the only home we will ever know can only be answered by the question "why", which delves into individual and mass decision-making. THAT question has answers that can be found in energy flows, economies of scale, and basic drive of humans towards laziness (maximum reward for minimum effort) etc. as well as the presence of sociopathic parasites among us.

For example: WHY do people spend so much time in cars? Well, they have to drive back and forth to work. WHY do people live so far from work? Well, because (a) bad land-use planning and (b) work is done in concentrated fashion where many people must be concentrated together. WHY must people be concentrated together? Because it is more "efficient" in terms of materials and energy to produce in large groups rather than individually at home. WHY is efficiency important?

Too busy to elucidate but would like to get back with this later.



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 14, 2019 10:40 AM

REAVERFAN


To save the ecosystem, three shifts in understanding across political and policy communities are required: (1) of the scale and pace of environmental breakdown, (2) the implications for societies, and (3) the subsequent need for transformative change.

In America, we'll never get past step one.

I mean, half our country (Republicans) don't believe it exists at all and you want to tell them "how bad" it is?

This is a crisis: Facing up to the age of environmental breakdown
https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/age-of-environmental-breakd
own?fbclid=IwAR0kf7ojZJCt0yNzup7JAz65W7o7MHEgIxaINAR4O1la4rR9ptskxF5j7jo

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 14, 2019 11:26 AM

REAVERFAN


Accelerating down the slippery slope. The "how."

We've lost 60% of wildlife in less than 50 years
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/weve-lost-60-of-wildlife-in-les
s-than-50-years
/

We're going to run out of wildlife. When they go, we go. This trend is accelerating, no thanks to reichwingers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 14, 2019 1:41 PM

REAVERFAN


Forbes, the well-known communist publication:

Unless It Changes, Capitalism Will Starve Humanity By 2050
https://www.forbes.com/sites/drewhansen/2016/02/09/unless-it-changes-c
apitalism-will-starve-humanity-by-2050/#120e50747ccc


Capitalism has generated massive wealth for some, but it’s devastated the planet and has failed to improve human well-being at scale.

• Species are going extinct at a rate 1,000 times faster than that of the natural rate over the previous 65 million years (see Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School).

• Since 2000, 6 million hectares of primary forest have been lost each year. That’s 14,826,322 acres, or just less than the entire state of West Virginia (see the 2010 assessment by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN).

• Even in the U.S., 15% of the population lives below the poverty line. For children under the age of 18, that number increases to 20% (see U.S. Census).


• The world’s population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050 (see United Nations' projections).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 14, 2019 8:41 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Accelerating down the slippery slope. The "how."

We've lost 60% of wildlife in less than 50 years
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/weve-lost-60-of-wildlife-in-les
s-than-50-years
/

We're going to run out of wildlife. When they go, we go. This trend is accelerating, no thanks to reichwingers.



No thanks to left wingers as well.

Every bad thing either side has to say about each other is no thanks to both of them.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 14, 2019 11:09 PM

REAVERFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Accelerating down the slippery slope. The "how."

We've lost 60% of wildlife in less than 50 years
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/weve-lost-60-of-wildlife-in-les
s-than-50-years
/

We're going to run out of wildlife. When they go, we go. This trend is accelerating, no thanks to reichwingers.



No thanks to left wingers as well.


Care to back that up? Show me a pair of left wing brothers who've spent over 100 million on climate denial propaganda.

I've been screaming about this since the 80's.

I didn't have 100 million.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 12:11 AM

WISHIMAY

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!----------------------------------------- "Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So REAVERBOT ... are you surprised that I agree with you post? Because I do, yanno. But youve been so focused on treating some people - me included- as "enemy" that you never noticed that I might be on your side. If you had stopped attacking long enugh to listen, you might have seen an ally instead of an enemy

. Instead, you spent an inordinate amount of time arguing with a fiction.




Squirm and twist and manipulate. You just never stop.
Moron thinks "Events Discussion" is about sides and allies.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 1:31 AM

REAVERFAN


It's time for all of us to accept the fact that we're not going to survive the mass extinction that's already underway. Humans will not survive another century.

Unless a billionaire has a plan to live underground for millennia, and conveniently decommissioned all nuclear plants and stored the waste safely, humans are already extinct.

Yes, we did it to ourselves.

I'm sorry, too.

I've been screaming about this since the 80's. No one gave a fuck then, and no one does, now.

We're going extinct. We need to deal with that fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 3:04 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So REAVERBOT ... are you surprised that I agree with you post? Because I do, yanno. But youve been so focused on treating some people - me included- as "enemy" that you never noticed that I might be on your side. If you had stopped attacking long enugh to listen, you might have seen an ally instead of an enemy

. Instead, you spent an inordinate amount of time arguing with a fiction.




Squirm and twist and manipulate. You just never stop.
Moron thinks "Events Discussion" is about sides and allies.



She can even make "The Extinction of All Mankind" about her...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 3:05 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverfan:
It's time for all of us to accept the fact that we're not going to survive the mass extinction that's already underway. Humans will not survive another century.

Unless a billionaire has a plan to live underground for millennia, and conveniently decommissioned all nuclear plants and stored the waste safely, humans are already extinct.

Yes, we did it to ourselves.

I'm sorry, too.

I've been screaming about this since the 80's. No one gave a fuck then, and no one does, now.

We're going extinct. We need to deal with that fact.



Still hopeful - people are gradually finding ways to make money from saving the planet. Greed will save us! Sure, we'll be toasty and more leathery, but we'll survive. Some will. Probably.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 7:45 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Accelerating down the slippery slope. The "how."

We've lost 60% of wildlife in less than 50 years
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/weve-lost-60-of-wildlife-in-les
s-than-50-years
/

We're going to run out of wildlife. When they go, we go. This trend is accelerating, no thanks to reichwingers.



No thanks to left wingers as well.


Care to back that up? Show me a pair of left wing brothers who've spent over 100 million on climate denial propaganda.

I've been screaming about this since the 80's.

I didn't have 100 million.



That wasn't a jab at you, believe it or not. I wasn't talking about you or anybody else on this board, except maybe Second... but even he doesn't have the kind of money or power we're really talking about here.

We're just pawns, buddy. If the Democrats in power actually gave a shit about it, something would have been done about it.



Captain Crunch is the only one here who gets it, Marcos.


Our only salvation in the end will be Greed. If "saving the planet" somehow becomes profitable before it's too late, that is.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 9:12 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Our only salvation in the end will be Greed. If "saving the planet" somehow becomes profitable before it's too late, that is.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Greed will not save the world. That is like saying the secret to weight lose is to eat more, and better tasting, food.

Have you ever seen the TV show My 600 Pound Life? The weight loss doctor on that show, who tells 600 pound people to stop digging their own grave with their teeth, is in the same position as Al Gore, the famous Democrat who told people to stop digging their own graves with their purchases. The Doctor and Al Gore tell people that if they won’t do it, they will die. Well, Gore doesn’t mention death, because he was a politician, but death is implied. The Doctor has a hell of difficult time convincing his patients to slow down their eating. And remember, these people weigh 600 pounds! Al Gore doesn’t have the persuasive advantage of a Doctor whose patients struggle to move against gravity as a constant reminder that they have done the wrong thing in the past and present. Al Gore, and the Democratic Party, have to convince people to change, but the people think it is not their fault, it is the fault of the 7.4 billion people not living in America. If only those 7.4 billion non-Americans would change their ways, stop destroying the Earth, then Americans won’t have to change. So Americans take it easy and wait for the World to solve the problem without Americans’ help. Remember Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement? He is taking life easy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_600-lb_Life#Subject_outcomes

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 9:37 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Greed will not save the world. That is like saying the secret to weight lose is to eat more, and better tasting, food.

Have you ever seen the TV show My 600 Pound Life? The weight loss doctor on that show, who tells 600 pound people to stop digging their own grave with their teeth, is in the same position as Al Gore, the famous Democrat who told people to stop digging their own graves with their purchases. The Doctor and Al Gore tell people that if they won’t do it, they will die. Well, Gore doesn’t mention death, because he was a politician, but death is implied. The Doctor has a hell of difficult time convincing his patients to slow down their eating. And remember, these people weigh 600 pounds! Al Gore doesn’t have the persuasive advantage of a Doctor whose patients struggle to move against gravity as a constant reminder that they have done the wrong thing in the past and present. Al Gore, and the Democratic Party, have to convince people to change, but the people think it is not their fault, it is the fault of the 7.4 billion people not living in America. If only those 7.4 billion non-Americans would change their ways, stop destroying the Earth, then Americans won’t have to change. So Americans take it easy and wait for the World to solve the problem without Americans’ help. Remember Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement? He is taking life easy.




Great line - "...who tells 600 pound people to stop digging their own grave with their teeth"

Otherwise: perhaps you are right. Perphaps not. You are an eternal skeptic (on this forum) and probably rightly so considering where you live and the people you have encountered and talked about. Remember my little anecdote about recycling and how it wasn't happening until our locals made it easy? That's The Trick - turn Americans/Humans inherent sloth and self interest back on themselves to get them to do the right thing. Think of it as Aikido Social Engineering. It has a chance. But for it to work we have to get rid of that fat orange PoS and his GOP lackeys. Otherwise you and Reaverfan will probably be right.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 10:25 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


The fat orange piece of shit is really irrelevant here. It doesn't matter who is in office. It never has in the past.

Once we make green energy something that is profitable, then it will take off. Maybe it will even make a thriving industry where a lot of people will be able to make decent wages for a time as well.

But like any other industry the workers will eventually be screwed so the people at the top can siphon as much money off of their backs as possible.

At least it will be better for the planet though.



Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 10:40 AM

REAVERFAN


That's the real problem.

Say what you will about the Green New Deal, but we currently have leaders who brag about our oil production and scoff at the very idea that we're about to go extinct.

They're busy plotting another coup in Venezuela, and a war in Iran. They're striving for a military-based hegemony that requires control of all oil supplies just to be viable.

That won't matter at all in 100 years.

What good is power when there's no one alive to have power over?

They're like trumptards, who, in spite of his constant lying and gaslighting, and his lifetime of deep corruption, sincerely believe he is God's chosen president.

We refuse to read the writing on the wall. We will die from cognitive dissonance.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 11:03 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Remember my little anecdote about recycling and how it wasn't happening until our locals made it easy? That's The Trick - turn Americans/Humans inherent sloth and self interest back on themselves to get them to do the right thing. Think of it as Aikido Social Engineering. It has a chance. But for it to work we have to get rid of that fat orange PoS and his GOP lackeys. Otherwise you and Reaverfan will probably be right.

My idea of Social Engineering is built on rewards and punishment. A reward example would be subsidize the cost of installing photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on a house or business building. A punishment example would be a carbon tax on fossil fuel. Both rewards and punishments revolve around money and, you know people, they don't wanna pay. They want somebody, not themselves, to pay. And that is how we get into these disastrous situations where the government won't deal in rewards and punishments because it is afraid of the majority voters, D or R. The majority doesn't wanna pay.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 3:14 PM

REAVERFAN


The fact is, it's already too late. If we did every possible thing we could right now to stop it, we would only slow it down a little.

The glaciers will melt, 90% or more of species will not be able to adapt to the changes fast enough. The plankton will die off, most of the sea life, the CO2 and methane sequestered in permafrost and the arctic will be released, accelerating even rapider increases in global temps.

Say goodbye to the polar bears and penguins, the coral reefs and rain forests. They're going and they're not coming back.

We've caused the world to slough us off like an infection. We will die out in a barren, dying, unfruitful world in which no mammals are likely to survive in a century or less. There won't be one person alive in 100 years.

Some of you may be young enough that you'll be there when the last few people finally give up and die.

I wish there was hope, but there really isn't. We're done for.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 3:49 PM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by second:My idea of Social Engineering is built on rewards and punishment. A reward example would be subsidize the cost of installing photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on a house or business building. A punishment example would be a carbon tax on fossil fuel. Both rewards and punishments revolve around money and, you know people, they don't wanna pay. They want somebody, not themselves, to pay. And that is how we get into these disastrous situations where the government won't deal in rewards and punishments because it is afraid of the majority voters, D or R. The majority doesn't wanna pay.


Rewards are great - they seem to have a decent success %. I'm not a big fan of punishments though - they fail a lot. Jails are full of examples. Humans are quick to push back if they think they are being punished, even if they deserve it, because they will always think it tragically unfair. So they will spend time fighting and dodging and nothing gets done.
So one possibility: rewards only. The 1% are smart and probably especially vain - give them something big and important they can put their stamp on (even their name) and let them donate to the cause at the same time. Call it Patriot Sponsorship - Freedom Skies, something something Red, White and Blue. They can have billboards and coffee table books made dipicting how they improved the air over their favorite state. Engage them in the process, "We couldn't have done it without you!" They're looking for the next ego boost - give it to them for a price.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 5:10 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:

Originally posted by second:My idea of Social Engineering is built on rewards and punishment. A reward example would be subsidize the cost of installing photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on a house or business building. A punishment example would be a carbon tax on fossil fuel. Both rewards and punishments revolve around money and, you know people, they don't wanna pay. They want somebody, not themselves, to pay. And that is how we get into these disastrous situations where the government won't deal in rewards and punishments because it is afraid of the majority voters, D or R. The majority doesn't wanna pay.


Rewards are great - they seem to have a decent success %. I'm not a big fan of punishments though - they fail a lot. Jails are full of examples. Humans are quick to push back if they think they are being punished, even if they deserve it, because they will always think it tragically unfair. So they will spend time fighting and dodging and nothing gets done.
So one possibility: rewards only. The 1% are smart and probably especially vain - give them something big and important they can put their stamp on (even their name) and let them donate to the cause at the same time. Call it Patriot Sponsorship - Freedom Skies, something something Red, White and Blue. They can have billboards and coffee table books made dipicting how they improved the air over their favorite state. Engage them in the process, "We couldn't have done it without you!" They're looking for the next ego boost - give it to them for a price.

When I was thinking about "saving all life on Earth" I was thinking about the politics and the cost along similar lines to how slavery was ended. There was three ways to end slavery:

1) The British model to end slavery by purchasing the slaves. This cost 5% of the British GDP. That is the reward side of motivating people (slave-owners) to change their minds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833#Payments_for_
slave_owners


2) The American model to end slavery depended on dealing out punishment to the slave-owners in the Civil War. This cost between 10 to 20 percent of GNP for both North and South.
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/2662305/Goldin_EconomicCos
t.pdf


3) The cheap solution that most people imagine will work is talk about ending slavery for "Four Score and Seven Years". But eventually, you have to choose either 1) or 2) if you actually want to end slavery or want to "save all life on Earth".

Personally, I think the British model was more effective and cheaper than a Civil War. If the World is going to save itself from death, it is gonna cost some serious percentage of the World's money, but the longer the World thinks the cost-free solution #3 will work, the more the final cost will be and the less of the World's life will be saved.

The annual World Economic Product (2018) is $134.981 trillion. If the World used 5% of that (as the British did to end slavery) to saving the world from death, that might be enough to make a difference. But I'm sure the World would much rather talk about it than pay for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)


The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 5:39 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverfan:
The fact is, it's already too late. If we did every possible thing we could right now to stop it, we would only slow it down a little.

The glaciers will melt, 90% or more of species will not be able to adapt to the changes fast enough. The plankton will die off, most of the sea life, the CO2 and methane sequestered in permafrost and the arctic will be released, accelerating even rapider increases in global temps.

Say goodbye to the polar bears and penguins, the coral reefs and rain forests. They're going and they're not coming back.

We've caused the world to slough us off like an infection. We will die out in a barren, dying, unfruitful world in which no mammals are likely to survive in a century or less. There won't be one person alive in 100 years.

Some of you may be young enough that you'll be there when the last few people finally give up and die.

I wish there was hope, but there really isn't. We're done for.

we have set in motion positive feedback cycles that will ony make warming worse: The melting of the glaciers and polar ice caps will reduce the reflectance (albedo) of the earth. Warming oceans will give up the CO2 that they previously absorbed. Warming permafrost will exhale methane (a potent greenhouse gas). It doesn't help that we've spewed god-knows how many quintillion carbon-based soot particles that land on everything and act like a thin coat of black paint, making everything aborb even more light and turning it into more heat.


All because we allowed a few very powerful sociopathic parasites to control our economies and our media.

If we were to get on the ball and equalize our wealth distribution so that nobody would go without the necessities, then we could credibly ask people to reduce their standard of living: make more production local, reduce automation and increase reliance on labor-power, end the appeal of laziness and mass consumption of cheap goods which need to be replaced one year later, stop funding the Pentagon's pointless consumption of energy steaming ships and flying planes all over creation, turn our attention (and our labor power) to restoring our environment. IF we do all of these things we may be able to avert planet Venus.

But everyone is entranced with a lifestyle in which we play endless videogames or interact addictively on social media, "earning" a living with nothing-burger jobs that rrequire no work and no thought, infantalized into compliance while we walk over a cliff.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. nI CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 6:31 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

All because we allowed a few very powerful sociopathic parasites to control our economies and our media.

Trump pulled America out of the Paris Climate Agreement. And he does have control of the American economy. And his image and voice are constantly on the media. And he has been a parasite cheating many people out of their money by taking his businesses into bankruptcy. Who voted to give control to Trump the Powerful Sociopath Parasite? 62,984,828 Americans are responsible for Trump because they voted for him.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 7:41 PM

REAVERFAN


A guy on Reddit said this:

I was at a XR meeting yesterday, and one of the organizers had recently met scientists who gave conferences on climate change at Davos.

The scientists said the rich asked them questions like "Is this villa in NZ safe from tsunamis?" and "How to prevent security guards from turning against me?"
And also "Is being the only one with access to the food storage enough?"


XR means Extinction Rebellion, a growing international group who understand what's at stake.

What these rich people don't understand is that their wealth won't save them. The planet is being rendered unlivable. No one, regardless of what they have, will be able to live on this planet.

You might as well try to live on Mars.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 8:20 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


You guys must be great at parties.

I'm going to choose to be cautiously optimistic on this one. It's not too late, and Greed will find a way.

Otherwise, why even bother contemplating it, let alone discuss it?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 8:37 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Hey, Second!

Keep your cows from farting and fucking up muh ozone layer, mkay?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 10:04 PM

REAVERFAN

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2019 11:05 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:



All because we allowed a few very powerful sociopathic parasites to control our economies and our media.- SIGNY

Trump pulled America out of the Paris Climate Agreement. And he does have control of the American economy.- SECONF

Who gives a fuck what you think, SECOND? You have such a hard-on for Trump that anything you post is 90% shit.

Let me ask you a question: What do you think would happen if all environmental regulation - national, state, or local - were ajudicated on the basis of whether or not they interfered with "normal and expected profits"? That any attempt to tax carbon, or mandate higher fuel economies than allowed by trade agreement, or reduce fuel consumption, or restrict timber exports, or subsidize green energy production, would be met in a secret trade tribunal which would void these efforts because they would be "unfair trade practices"?

Do you really think that the answer to this globalist-generated catstrophe consists of sticking your head into a globalist-generated meat-grinder?

Most environmental efforts simply represent polluters' efforts to "monetize" their pollution. That approach has never worked; even the SCAQMD - which flogged the concept since 1996 with all of the best will and technology available - abandoned the concept recently.

If it wasn't for Trump backing us out of these trade agreements, AOC would never be able to suggest that the USA govt undertake a New Green Deal because it would be against international law. You can thank Trump now, and so can she.



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2019 12:45 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Glad to see I'm not the only wun hoo can see our impending doom.

Way back in grade skool I saw there were too many peepl on the planet, so desided to never hav kidz. The population wuz under 4 billion then.

I think 1 billion shoud be the limit. Even if the ecosystem coud support more,
wuts the point? 1 billion iz many timez more than needed for jenetic variety
and survival uv relatively local catastrofyz, so anything beyond iz just worthless massive repetition.

Sumbudy I argued with about this claimed I wuz rong kuz 'we're at 7-1/2 billion now and doing fine'.

The thing iz that the ecosystem haz been vizably cracking under the strain for decadez. The more there are uv us over the limit, the faster it crumblz.

Dimwits hoo think in termz uv their own lifespan and say 'duznt matter to me, I'll be ded befor then' shoud be sentenst to prizon and forst to woc Soylent Green, Eraserhed, Silent Running, and a few other doomzday moviez at least wuns a week for 10 yirz.



----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2019 1:44 AM

REAVERFAN


When the very intricate network of lifeforms you depend on are all extinct, you're next, and that's where we are.

No human will be able to live on this planet 100 years from now. Not one. You might as well try to start a farm on the moon.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2019 1:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


On the bright side ... or not so bright side ... some people are talking about, maybe hoping for, a prolonged sunspot minimum like the Maunder minimum in the Middle Ages.

I have no idea why this idea came up; not being a solar astrophysicist I don't know if there is any way to predict long-term changes in solar output ... as far as I know there isn't, but if anyone has further info on this hoped-for (?) minimum let me know!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2019 2:31 AM

REAVERFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
On the bright side ... or not so bright side ... some people are talking about, maybe hoping for, a prolonged sunspot minimum like the Maunder minimum in the Middle Ages.

I have no idea why this idea came up; not being a solar astrophysicist I don't know if there is any way to predict long-term changes in solar output ... as far as I know there isn't, but if anyone has further info on this hoped-for (?) minimum let me know!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

Fuck off, Russian troll.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2019 7:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Fuck off, Russian troll.- REAVERBOT
Fuck off, TROLLBOT.

Did I say that a Maunder minimum would save us?

No.

At best, even IF it occurred (and I thought I was pretty clear that I have no idea why anyone would think so: It's not like we've been able to predict long-term solar output), the best projections are that it would shave off a few tenths of a degree warming, and once the minimum was past we'd be in worse shape than before assuming that we didn't change our ways. At least, according to people who make such projections. I just brought it up for the sake of completeness ... a form of intellectual honesty that you appear to be totally unacquainted with.


But I see your pattern: The moment someone offends you, you call them a "Russian troll".


If I were TRULY a Russian troll, I would have posted

Global warming is Russia's friend. It opens up vast swaths of Siberia and the Arctic Ocean to agricultural development, resource extraction, and transportation. While other nations will suffer from global warming, Russia will thrive. Russia does not allow GMO agriculture, therefore Russia does not bathe huge swaths of the environment with glyphosate. Russia does not depend on globalist banks to propel its development and therefore does not flog its industry for ever-expanding profits with which to pay ever-accumulating interest, therefore Russia's development is balanced and sustainable.

See, since I don't think such arguments are true, I don't post such posts. So I'm not a Russian troll, just someone that you decided to attack.


*****

Also, for the sake of completeness, the [other] causes of extinction include urbanization, intensified (industrial) agriculture, and loss of habitat, not just global warming. It doesn't help that we spray a gazzilion chemicals on our land and into our water and bulldoze the rest because we no longer have family farms, we have "efficient" factory farms.

And just to stick a needle in that pompous and vacuous self-righteousness that you call a conscience, IF the USA were to create environmentally-righteous policies, we would immediately shut off the flow of immigrants which are adding significantly to our population growth.

IF we were serious about mitigating environmental damage, aside from ending our endless "interventions" overseas we would control our borders and bring our agricultural practices, resource extraction, infrastructural demands, energy generation and use, urbanization, manufacturing redevelopment, financial incentives, and importation policies back in sync with our environment, and leave other nations to do the same with theirs, without providing a "safety valve" for their exploitative practices (which we enforced).

Here in the Southwest, where we're ALREADY flogging our water and land resources beyond sustainability, the LAST thing we need is "growth" and "population increase". This year when we've exceeded our normal rainfall and snowpack? Like a possible Maunder-minimum, I look at is as a reprieve, not a solution. But we're resource-limited, and the reality is that southwest precipitation is projected (by climatologists) to reduce by an even further 25%. I recognize that as fact. Do you?



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2019 7:49 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by JO753:
Glad to see I'm not the only wun hoo can see our impending doom.

Way back in grade skool I saw there were too many peepl on the planet, so desided to never hav kidz. The population wuz under 4 billion then.

I think 1 billion shoud be the limit. Even if the ecosystem coud support more,
wuts the point? 1 billion iz many timez more than needed for jenetic variety
and survival uv relatively local catastrofyz, so anything beyond iz just worthless massive repetition.

Sumbudy I argued with about this claimed I wuz rong kuz 'we're at 7-1/2 billion now and doing fine'.

The thing iz that the ecosystem haz been vizably cracking under the strain for decadez. The more there are uv us over the limit, the faster it crumblz.

Dimwits hoo think in termz uv their own lifespan and say 'duznt matter to me, I'll be ded befor then' shoud be sentenst to prizon and forst to woc Soylent Green, Eraserhed, Silent Running, and a few other doomzday moviez at least wuns a week for 10 yirz.



----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com .



I agree with the 1 Billion figure... at least for starters.

Still too many, IMO, but it's a good goal to reach, and at that point we could talk about what to do next.


I'd say the both of us are pretty brilliant overall, JO, but there are smarter minds working for people far more powerful than us that have no doubt been planning this for a while. I don't think it will be any horror story like in the X-Files, but it's going to be done through social engineering. We'll all think that it was our own idea not to have kids.

I don't believe any predictions that say we're going to hit 10 Billion people. Evidence points to the contrary... at least in 1st world nations that relatively have their shit together.

I never decided not to have any kids. It just kind of happened that way, and at this point I can't say that I mind much. It certainly makes life a lot easier.




BTW... how's that perpetual motion machine going? Is it good enough yet?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2019 10:08 AM

REAVERFAN


This reminds me of a fun little conspiracy-laden thing that actually happened. Seen through a post-apocalyptic lens, it sorta makes sense:

Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.

Unite humanity with a living new language.

Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason.

Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.

Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.

Avoid petty laws and useless officials.

Balance personal rights with social duties.

Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite.

Be not a cancer on the earth – Leave room for nature – Leave room for nature

https://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/georgia-guidestones-myst
erious-instructions-for-the-post-apocalypse
/

I'm of the opinion that once the extinction really sets in, and even the Jesus freaks realize that nothing is coming to save them, the world will shrug us off like a bad cold.

There won't be little pockets of survivors, at least not for long. There won't be enough resources to sustain any number of people, not even one. Not even a billionaire in a bunker filled with 100 years worth of supplies.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2019 10:27 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Its odd that I know so many peepl hoo dont hav kidz. Its a little encourajing, but not enuf to make me optimistic. I woc Steve Wilkos every weekday and all the gests are plopping out babyz all the time.

The GRaVMIL still failz to complete a sycle. I hav a few more ideaz taking shape in my brain, but havent regained enuf enthuziazm yet to try them.

---------

About the Russia vs US aspect uv this -

If you needed to put the blame on a single factor, money iz the obvious choise. It iz the real life Frankenstien monster. It iz wun uv the cornerstone inventionz that make sivilization possible, but it got out uv control and took over, spawning capitalizm and all the associated crappola thats gobbling up the planet.

I dont know - iz Russia still considered comunist? China iz, yet they hav at least az much capitalizm going on az we do.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2019 10:51 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If I were TRULY a Russian troll, I would have posted

Global warming is Russia's friend. It opens up vast swaths of Siberia and the Arctic Ocean to agricultural development, resource extraction, and transportation. While other nations will suffer from global warming, Russia will thrive. Russia does not allow GMO agriculture, therefore Russia does not bathe huge swaths of the environment with glyphosate. Russia does not depend on globalist banks to propel its development and therefore does not flog its industry for ever-expanding profits with which to pay ever-accumulating interest, therefore Russia's development is balanced and sustainable.



You did, just there, post it. You just made the argument that YOU are a Russian Troll.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2019 11:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You did, just there, post it. You just made the argument that YOU are a Russian Troll.
I ALSO posted that I don't believe that it's true. You think that you demonstrated how "clever" you are? Nah... you just demonstrated that apparently that you can't stop lying, by trying to pin opinions on me that I don't agree with.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2019 11:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

About the Russia vs US aspect uv this -

If you needed to put the blame on a single factor, money iz the obvious choise. It iz the real life Frankenstien monster. It iz wun uv the cornerstone inventionz that make sivilization possible, but it got out uv control and took over, spawning capitalizm and all the associated crappola thats gobbling up the planet.

I dont know - iz Russia still considered comunist? China iz, yet they hav at least az much capitalizm going on az we do.

If you want to be absolutely correct, NOBODY should ever have been considered "communist" in the first place because "communism" never existed. "Communism" would be the stage after socialism - a perfect international worker's paradise. Since socialism never got to the "international" stage and the "paradise" part never happened either, I think we can eliminate "communism" from our vocabulary as a working model of anything (a little like "anarcho-libertarianism"). China is more socialist than Russia because the Chinese government owns a larger percentage of production facilities than the Russian government.

But AFA money is concerned, I believe you're correct. Especially the creation of what they call "fiat currency" ... money which can be created in virtually unlimited quantities. Instead of being a medium of exchange, money became something that the banks could create out of thin air, and by loaning this thin-air money in massive amounts, banks were able to control the future.

What a mess.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2019 11:53 AM

REAVERFAN


Climate denial is insidious and well-financed.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2019 11:55 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Climate denial is insidious and well-financed.- REAVERBOT


Of course it is. It runs counter to the very foundation of American influence: The petrodollar. Anyone who seriously tries to shake that pillar will be silenced, one way or another.

The speaker is a dick, and I don't believe his little story about the Antarctic scientist (The world was NOT 2 degrees hotter than now 55 thousand years ago, that was 55 MILLION years ago. Also, mass extinctions were recorded at the same time.) OR his little homily about the wisdom of investors and the honesty of brokers and bankers. And if you believe that a-hole, I have a bridge to sell you.




-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2019 12:37 PM

REAVERFAN


There's a ton of these people.



A convenient debunking of every lie:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2019 12:53 PM

REAVERFAN


One of my favorite YouTubers is Contrapoints. She combines incisive observation with twisted humor. Her take on climate change:



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2019 1:26 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


What inspired two philosophers of science to wade into misinformation?

O’Connor: I’ve been worried about climate change since I was 5 years old, and here we are 30 years later and still not doing anything about it. This is absolutely insane. It’s clear the marketplace of ideas isn’t working. We’ve allowed ourselves to be influenced by big oil and gas for over 30 years. But it was the 2016 election that prompted us. We just started writing it right after the election. We just sat down and said, What can we do, given our research skills, to improve this public crisis about false belief? . . .

O’Connor: We are often voting as if a matter of fact is true or not. We vote for someone who doesn’t believe in climate change and then act as if climate change is not true. That vote doesn’t change whether it’s true, and that vote doesn’t change whether we’re going to face the consequences of climate change. So the problem here is that matters of fact shouldn’t be settled by public vote. They should be settled by gathering evidence and using that evidence to feed into our best tools to figure out what’s true based on it.

Weatherall: Scientists disagree. They ought to disagree. If they weren’t criticizing one another, and disagreeing with one another, we wouldn’t have the grounds to trust the results of science the way that we do. But in cases where it looks as if scientists are disagreeing, it’s very easy for someone to say the jury is out, or the evidence isn’t clear. What often happens is that debates in scientific literature, in peer-reviewed journals, get settled. But then the debate will move to the newspapers and get explored on op-ed pages. It might be written by a scientist who’s doing the disagreeing. But there’s an illegitimacy to that. It reflects not sincere differences between people who are treating the evidence in the same way. It reflects a person who is no longer producing work of a sort that can meaningfully convince their peers of anything. So now they’re trying to convince people who are less equipped to evaluate it.

Weatherall: I had a fascinating conversation with the policymakers in the European Union about their ability to engage critically with science. What they said was, Look, we agree that a certain kind of critical reasoning is essential to having true and reliable beliefs. Unfortunately, we’re elected to represent particular groups and particular interests, and so we don’t get to question certain assumptions because our constituents don’t question those assumptions, and so wouldn’t vote for us. We wouldn’t be doing our representative job if we were questioning those assumptions.

Isn’t that a cop-out?

Weatherall: Yes, but let’s look at our institutions. Look at the way that they’re failing. I think we could still have democracy with institutions that are better engineered, that are developed in response to the ways in which our current institutions are failing. We have some states that have direct voting on referenda and ballot measures. We need to find democratic institutions that are sufficiently representative, that are responsive to citizens but aren’t simply aggregating the opinions and beliefs of the large group.

http://nautil.us/issue/69/patterns/why-misinformation-is-about-who-you
-trust-not-what-you-think


The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2019 8:38 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by JO753:
Its odd that I know so many peepl hoo dont hav kidz. Its a little encourajing, but not enuf to make me optimistic. I woc Steve Wilkos every weekday and all the gests are plopping out babyz all the time.



All of my cousins and brothers came from families with anywhere from 2 to 5 siblings. There were 22 of us. At 40 years, I'm the oldest, and the youngest is somewhere around 23 by now I'd say. Combined, there are only 6 kids so far in the next generation.

One of my old friends has two kids (he had two sisters and a brother). About half of the rest of them have either 1 or zero kids.

I think it's kind of an "Idiocracy" thing. Most of these people are smart and did a lot of weighing things out. The people showing up on Steven Wilkos' show are idiots.



Although I do agree with and have supported food stamps and EIC payouts for children in these threads because I feel it's the only way to give unfortunate kids a leg up and try to keep them out of a life of crime, I do think we're going to have to start cutting that off at some point. Maybe make a HUGE deal about the fact that in 25 years they will be cut in half (adjusted for inflation) and in 50 years they won't exist anymore.

At the same time, provide birth control and contraceptives for free at schools. (I'm not a doctor, so maybe the birth control isn't good for young girls... but make it available to them when it is safe, anyhow).

I think the ones popping out a ton of kids were either born stupid or have really bad education. Once they've had one illegitimate kid early on in life there really isn't anything that's going to stop them from having 5 more. Maybe if they had proper sex ed in school and had the means to prevent having children provided to them for free and without judgement, they won't make a choice that will almost guaranty a bad future for them and any children they have?


Quote:

The GRaVMIL still failz to complete a sycle. I hav a few more ideaz taking shape in my brain, but havent regained enuf enthuziazm yet to try them.



GRaVMIL. I like it. :)

Did my suggestion to use the sun to get it over the hump provide any good data?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2019 11:17 PM

REAVERFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by JO753:
Its odd that I know so many peepl hoo dont hav kidz. Its a little encourajing, but not enuf to make me optimistic. I woc Steve Wilkos every weekday and all the gests are plopping out babyz all the time.



All of my cousins and brothers came from families with anywhere from 2 to 5 siblings. There were 22 of us. At 40 years, I'm the oldest, and the youngest is somewhere around 23 by now I'd say. Combined, there are only 6 kids so far in the next generation.

One of my old friends has two kids (he had two sisters and a brother). About half of the rest of them have either 1 or zero kids.

I think it's kind of an "Idiocracy" thing. Most of these people are smart and did a lot of weighing things out. The people showing up on Steven Wilkos' show are idiots.



Although I do agree with and have supported food stamps and EIC payouts for children in these threads because I feel it's the only way to give unfortunate kids a leg up and try to keep them out of a life of crime, I do think we're going to have to start cutting that off at some point. Maybe make a HUGE deal about the fact that in 25 years they will be cut in half (adjusted for inflation) and in 50 years they won't exist anymore.

At the same time, provide birth control and contraceptives for free at schools. (I'm not a doctor, so maybe the birth control isn't good for young girls... but make it available to them when it is safe, anyhow).

I think the ones popping out a ton of kids were either born stupid or have really bad education. Once they've had one illegitimate kid early on in life there really isn't anything that's going to stop them from having 5 more. Maybe if they had proper sex ed in school and had the means to prevent having children provided to them for free and without judgement, they won't make a choice that will almost guaranty a bad future for them and any children they have?



Welcome to socialism, comrade!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
A thread for Democrats Only
Sun, September 15, 2019 20:16 - 2714 posts
my platform as presidential candidate - what's yours?
Sun, September 15, 2019 16:54 - 251 posts
Why Is House Not Following Impeachment Rules?
Sun, September 15, 2019 16:52 - 11 posts
How CIA-Backed Palantir Is Helping Police Root Out 'Thought Crimes'
Sun, September 15, 2019 16:39 - 9 posts
Impeachment Investigation Is Underway, Judiciary Committee Says
Sun, September 15, 2019 16:34 - 92 posts
Who Is Running In 2020?
Sun, September 15, 2019 16:30 - 220 posts
Spiegel Online: Interview with Edward Snowden
Sun, September 15, 2019 16:21 - 1 posts
The secret plot to depose Trump
Sun, September 15, 2019 16:10 - 186 posts
Look who's getting red pilled...
Sun, September 15, 2019 15:57 - 5 posts
Hamza Bin Laden alive?
Sun, September 15, 2019 15:54 - 5 posts
Who Has Been Fired From Celebrity Appresident?
Sun, September 15, 2019 15:50 - 36 posts
Evidence: So where are we now(II) ?
Sun, September 15, 2019 15:48 - 765 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL