So the current situation is exactly the same as last week, i.e. no treaty, but this week that lack of treaty is more dangerous?
Doomsday Clock ticks one minute closer to annihilation
The boffins who run the Doomsday Clock – an estimate of how close humanity is to annihilation by climate change or nuclear war - have just moved the minute hand one minute closer to midnight. Invented by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) in 1947, the clock represents nuclear danger with midnight representing the end of …
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 12:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Mme.Mynkoff
You do realise that one of the reasons that climate change deniers hate being called deniers is that they claim that noone actually says that the climate is staying the same. As it happens: Go forward or back a year and you'll see a significant warming trend. 1998 was the last El Ninio, ie: it was hotter. This year, IIRC, is a La Nina ie: Cooler - there is a big issue if a years expected to be cooler are only as cool as the last year expected to be hotter.-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 15:51 GMT CmdrX3
Most are not "deniers" they are sceptics, there is a big difference. I have also heard the climate research fundraisers equate "climate change deniers" to Nazis. When I see such a propaganda machine in effect, it makes me doubt the message they have to spread. As the saying goes... the bigger the lie the more people will believe it.
-
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 16:35 GMT Ammaross Danan
Lingo
"Fukishima had a catastrophic meltdown that didn't kill anyone" Doesn't it have to be a catastrophy to be "catastrophic"? Last I checked, Fukishima was a partial meltdown, but no where near a "catastrophy" such as Chernobyl.... As for climate change, the polarization is whether humans are causing it or not. Perhaps the argument should be "no significant [human-caused] warming." Just because our models are flawed (they don't take into account all environmental factors, so you can't say they are not), doesn't mean they're wrong; just inaccurate. It's the fact that our current temperatures are not where they were projected to be that should be more conclusive.
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 11:00 GMT Khaptain
Correct me if I am wrong
Is there some major reason, other than financial gain, for which we cannot simply begin to implement a reduction in the number of people on the planet. I don't mean some mass destruction of populations, I mean simply a one child per household kind of policy.
There was a time where it was necassary to have 7 children in order to have some hope of surviving, today that issue no longer holds.
Isn't it also about time that the supposed "religous leaders" stood up and made a commitment to allowing for contraception. I can't really believe that the great Sky Fairy intended for us to destroy the earth through over-population.
Why are the governments doing nothing and don't give me that "but who will pay for the future generations" crap.
Think how many problems would be resolved simply by reducing the population. There would be more farmland/food to go around, the available natural energies would last longer, we would automatically reduce pollution and waste, the forests would begin to grow/increase.
I really hate these false claims that Nuclear is bad, Global Warming is destroying the earth, there are not enough resources etc These problems can be resolved by simply stopping the over population of the earth.
The capatalistic diatribe to which have become accustomed will not resolve anything other than filling the pockets of those that presume they will be dead and gone or protected before the real problems actually begin.
I wonder how far away from WW3 we really are.
( I hate Wednesdays)
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 11:17 GMT The BigYin
It's happening...
...in the first-world. The answer is education, i.e. get the kids in the third world into school. After a generation or so, things will sort themselves out.
However with the kids in school, there will be no one in the factories making your T-shirts for £5 or new training shoes (which you *will* moan about), no money coming into child's household (because the child is not working) and the situation will worsen.
The answer to that is to pair a fair price and fine the hell out of companies using child labour and jail the execs who have worker's activists executed (we all know which companies these are).
All that hits the bottom line and share prices, can't have that! So it's much easier for us to profit from selling arms to dictators, having wars, securing oil and ensuring the status quo.
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 14:05 GMT Anonymous Coward 101
Oh yeah...
"The answer to that is to pair a fair price and fine the hell out of companies using child labour and jail the execs who have worker's activists executed (we all know which companies these are)." I am pretty sure it is already illegal to execute worker activists right now - it's called murder. Why would execs start obeying a new law when they are already not obeying laws against murder?
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 11:39 GMT Anonymous Coward 101
"Is there some major reason, other than financial gain, for which we cannot simply begin to implement a reduction in the number of people on the planet. I don't mean some mass destruction of populations, I mean simply a one child per household kind of policy."
1. Who is 'we' that would impose such a policy?
2. How would this policy be enforced?
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 12:49 GMT Ben Liddicott
Excellent. Your children won't be around to complain
...about my children cluttering up the place! And mine won't have to listen to yours whining about the population "problem". Seriously, we are better fed and housed than ever before in the history of the world, all due to clever technology created by the excess population, who wouldn't be born if the misanthropic, malthusian malcontents had their way. What's the problem?
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 20:15 GMT Nuke
@ AC 101
AC 101 wrote :-
>> 1. Who is 'we' that would impose such a policy?
>> 2. How would this policy be enforced?
The GP did make the point about religious leaders who currently speak against contraception. So those religious leaders are currently imposing the opposite policy in many parts of the world, and enforcing it (eg by excommunication, threats of hell fire etc).
Thus they show that it can be done.
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 11:45 GMT Evil Auditor
@Khaptain
I see your point and indeed agree largely. My reason against a one child policy is personal freedom. And there are undesirable side effects (cp. China and women/men ratio). An obvious and likewise undesirable solution would be WW3.
As alternative means for population decrease we should discuss other solutions. How about a child tax -in contrast to child allowance- to cover for all the external costs a human being is likely to cause in its life time? To be effective, such a tax has to be imposed on the parents close to birth (e.g. during the first ten years).
Other ideas are welcome!
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 16:55 GMT Alan W. Rateliff, II
Every person is an asset, not a liability
"How about a child tax -in contrast to child allowance- to cover for all the external costs a human being is likely to cause in its life time?" If you buy into the idea that every person on the planet consumes and does not produce. This logic is deeply flawed in a productive society. You apparently buy into the central planning ideas in which the amount of supportive resources are limited. Therefore, only the central planners can properly distribute those resources and only to a limited number of dependents. But consider a different line of thought. A line of thought in which during the formative years of dependency upon its parents, the child learns to become productive. Once the child reaches maturity it would, as an adult, produce and therefore put into the system. (Of course, once dependents became productive, then the power and authority of the central planners evaporates.) A family of seven children should mean seven more people building houses or railways, providing medical services, etc. But to the central planner, seven more people equates to seven more mouths to feed and consumption of even more limited resources. Depending upon which boffin you wish to follow for the day, the Earth cannot sustain its population given ground for crops and livestock or it can produce much more. Both sides agree that, indeed, the Earth has limited natural resources (the limits of which are then argued upon,) but only one side agrees that the past few decades of recycling and reusing has made any strides while the other side insists that 80% or more post-consumer content in just about everything we consume is not enough and it is time to start culling the human herd. And yet, somehow, the human population continues to increase. Sustainably. Even with starvation and disease deaths in third-world populations, somehow. Even amidst farmers being paid not to grow certain crops on their otherwise useful, fertile, and productive lands. Paris, fertile... somehow.
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 11:51 GMT Ben Liddicott
If you think there are too many people on the planet do us all a favour
"Is there some major reason, other than financial gain, for which we cannot simply begin to implement a reduction in the number of people on the planet." There is no "we". There are normal healthy people who love their children and couldn't imagine doing without them and there are nasty misanthropes like you and the government of China. As it is there is more food production per-capita and less hunger than ever before in the history of the world. Why do you think there are too many people? By what measure? Even the so-called "one child" policies of China don't apply to everyone. They don't apply to colonists going to Thailand or Han people colonising the outer reaches of China where the people are not Han but Uyghur, Turkic, Mongolian etc. They don't apply to rich male party leaders (of course) because they have lots of girlfriends who can all have one child each even if they can't swing an exception. There are all sorts of exceptions. If you think there are too many people on the planet do us all a favour and lead by example.-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 17:39 GMT Anonymous Coward
It's a nerd thing
There's something about techies that makes a few of them love nasty authoritarian policies such as population control. It's a revenge fantasy. The jocks may have kicked sand in their faces at school - but now they'll show 'em. What is it?
Sexual frustration?
Envy?
Life has passed 'em by?
Any guesses?
Population loonies are the cockroaches of the internets, oblivious to reason.
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 11:56 GMT Scott Broukell
Population Problem - couldn't agree more
More to the point - if we do nothing about it then nature will take its course and it won't be very nice! Famine, disease, drought and warfare etc. The likely winners(?!) are the the developed nations with money and resource - might this be the course we are already set on for human kind ? Female children especially desperately need the chance of education - so that they can make choices about bearing children / contraception for themselves. Why does a child HAVE to be brainwashed into whatever religion it's parents observe - amounts to abuse in my mind. Children are the future ALWAYS - their prosperity and development is in our hands. Our immediate responsibility must always be towards them and not our own 'must have' needs of the moment. Do we want monetary profit / gain NOW, or a sustainable (and probably yes, less exciting) LONG TERM future for human kind ? In all honesty I doubt we are grown up enough right now to work this out holistically as one species pulling together. Maybe our species just needs to hit the wall a few times before we learn from past mistakes - we have been through some tough cycles in the past (glaciation, prehistoric migrations etc)-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 12:27 GMT Ben Tasker
@Evil Auditor
Tell you what, let's (as a generation) lead by example. Let's all refuse to pay taxes paying for schools (as you're foregoing money for the benefit of someone elses children). Of course, that might not seem quite such a bright idea when kids become adults, who don't earn because they are uneducated and thick as shit. They then won't be paying taxes, so no winter fuel allowance (suspect that'll be gone anyway by the time I'm old). Need a state-funded nurse to wipe your arse? Sorry no money for that. The point in a species is to try and survive as a species for as long as possible, hell it's the basis of evolution. We all have to forego something for the benefit of less worthwhile causes (propping banks etc), so allowing for the survival of the species seems like a more worthwhile cause somehow. I suspect you're probably trolling in all fairness, but the level of selfishness some people show really irks me (and I'm far from selfless).-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 13:53 GMT Evil Auditor
@Ben Tasker
No, not trolling, I'm quite serious about those questions. First, the "I" referred not so much to me but more generally to everyone. Of course there are good reasons to pay taxes (among others for schools). This is, however, more of an economics question as are your other points. I understood "long term" in Scott Broukell's comment of much longer term than economics can reach. A more tangible question would be: why should I not drive my fossile fuel guzzling car to safe some raw oil for someone who might need it 500 years ahead? Now for something different. You may feel the needs to survive as a species (although I doubt it) and act upon. But there is no such thing as a drive to "try to survive as a species". All there is is the individual drive to having sex. And as a somewhat rational being I can very well decide whether I want to reproduce.
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 13:02 GMT You Are Not Free
@Evil Auditer
"Why should I forego whatever in favour of someone's children?" Or, to refine. "Why should I forego whatever in favour of children?" I can only imagine you're cold hearted, empty, soul-less and hating to come out with a statement like that, not someone people should be listening to. Thumbs down.-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 14:06 GMT Anonymous Coward
not birth control...
It's not people having children, 2 adults having 2 or 3 kids is balanced-ish - the children replace the adults when the adults die and there's a small increase in the population, the problem is that the two adults are hanging around for a lot longer than they used to. What we need to do is reduce our consumption of resources (probably fairly drastically) to compensate - right now all the wonderful tech is working, but it's costing 2 or 3 times what the planet can sustain to do it.
-
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 17:10 GMT Alan W. Rateliff, II
Some people don't think it be the way it is, but it do.
Or, as in the case now, developed countries impose standards upon third-world nations which have the effect of preventing them from developing and essentially doom them to famine, disease, and warfare. But, we give them clean water, mosquito nets, and solar power, which makes it all better. And the brain-washing perpetrated by parents is part of their parental guidance. Whether good or bad, parents are free to raise their children as they see fit. And this is a Good Thing(tm) to a large degree: think about the one or two children who stray from their parents' guidance/brain-washing to establish their own way of religious, political, moral, or ethical thinking. The issue is that while children develop, they rely upon authority to help them make sense of the world. And if the parents don't provide that authority, someone must, which begs the question: who knows better how to raise our children? Paris, better not to raise children, but free to do so.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 14:50 GMT Knochen Brittle
Yes, the major reason is that 'our' so-called 'elite' ruling-class fears losing monopoly power,
as the privilege of these parasites depends on their continuing ability to rob and exploit the '3rd world' [be that a geographical location or politically disenfranchised class] which, if raised out of its current impotence, will no longer be amenable to such abuse. // The function of Religion, whose 'ministers' are a self-selecting specially hypocritical subset of the ruling-class, is to manage the mass of human misery, not lessen it, by massaging the minds of the victims with cunning lies to convince them that this current Scheißspiel is the inevitable natural order of things, whilst partaking generously in the fruits of their despoliation. // Education, particularly the political variety, is the key to breaking this criminal system ~ knowledge empowers People to emancipate from their Slavers, which is precisely why such huge effort is invested to confound that process. Wherein, if you rely on Religion for guidance, the vicious circle is closed. // Population stabilisation or reduction would obviously be a great help to quality of life on the planet, and most educated people naturally gravitate towards limiting themselves to 2 children per pair, i.e. replacement rate, which is effectively the same as the one child policy. // Re. WW3, I think we still have about 10 years breathing space to get our shit wired and avert it, plus a few other disasters. -
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 16:52 GMT L.B.
I absolutely agree we need to start reducing the population...
...there are just too many of us for the world to sustain. This can only be done on a regional basis (country by country), but we (as a race) need to start somewhere. I would for a start stop all forms of child credits/support in this country with the proviso that: - Anyone who requests state help to bring up baby is admitting they have bread beyond their means. As such, both parents should have to "see the vet" before getting any money to assist looking after their current offspring. It's about time we got shot of the "I've got rights" crap, where every moron expects everyone else to pay for their "rights" to have babies, IVF and much, much more. Everyone needs to be forced to take responsibility for their own choices and actions. Some will undoubtedly say I'm just a cold heartless bar-steward (and they may be a little correct), but that's because I don't have problems with basic logic. That is why I will never give money to charities for "saving the starving babies". It's not because I don't care, it is because it solves nothing, every baby you save this year is just another mouth to feed next year, plus all the new babies. Any society that breeds beyond its means (1st or 3rd world) is doomed to reach a point were starvation and very low living standards become the norm. It is only about 100 year ago that in Britain the norm was to have 4 to 5 children, as 3 to 4 were expected to die due to disease and lack of food. better medicine and vastly improved agriculture made it possible to massively increase population since then, but the limits have been reached and exceeded. -
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 18:07 GMT Khaptain
@AC
>I'm sorry that you can't get a girlfriend. I really am.
>But people quite like having children, and it's none of your business to interfere with that. Keep >your human-hating fascist fantasies to yourself.
Some facts, I have been happily married for more than 18 years, I am well travelled and relatively well educated.
As I previously mentioned I find the world to be a wonderfull place, it is simply let down by some non thinking "Etres Humaines".
We are happier to take rather than to give, our selfishness leads to our destruction. And yet you don't have to be Einstein to realise that a limited population could survive endlessly on the available resources. I believe that some of the Amazon tribes actually do this very successfully.
I don't hate people and I am certainely not a fascist. What I do hate is the abuse, the waste and the wanton selfishness displayed by human kind.
We have the intelligence to have a peacefull world whereby all men live equally. We have the means to distribute and develop health and care for everyone.
But do we do this, of course we don't, not unless there is finacial gain behind it. We hide our heads in the sand whilst raping the earth of everything.
I merely presented my opinion which is about reducing the world population. I did not and will not advocate that someone should have the decision as to who lives or who dies. I beleive that as intelligent beings we can make that choice for ourselves.
Someone with 7 kids chooses that option just the same way that I choose to have none, there's nothing fascist or hateful about that. I don't wish to decide for others , I only wish that they would think rationally about what they are doing before doing it.
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 20:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
"Blah blah blah....I did not and will not advocate that someone should have the decision as to who lives or who dies. I beleive that as intelligent beings we can make that choice for ourselves."
WTF?!?!
So are you going to be one of the people that chooses to die for the purposes of reducing the population or is this way of thinking just for the other people, sorry, I mean "intelligent beings", are they your followers or something, are you their Dear Leader?
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 21:14 GMT Khaptain
>So are you going to be one of the people that chooses to die for the purposes of reducing the> >population
By mentioning the choice as to who dies I was refering to "someone" elses remark concerning euthanasia which is not something I would choose to do. I would not take life away from anyone, it's not my choice to make..
By mention the choice as to who lives I was refering to my choice about not having children. This is my choice to make as it is for almost everyone.
>are they your followers or something, are you their Dear Leader?.
I have the right to my opinion how you treat that is up to you but I consider your kneejerk reaction quite unnecassary.
@Syldra
>I can respect your decision of not having children, even if I don't understand it
I on the other hand don't understand why everyone should have children. In the 1800s people often had children because they required extra hands around the farm, they were cheaper than hired hands.. Yes in those days the children did come in handy, we have the knoweldge and the information which should allow us to build our own barn nowadays.
When I talk about not having enough or having too much I am more concerned about inequality rather than social status. Why should a hard working man be paid so little and a banker paid so much. The banker would never be able to fend for his children with his bare hands whereas the worker probably could.
@Everyone
Today, I have the impression that there are many people who have children for all the wrong reasons, peer pressure, boredom relief or because that is what they were told they should do. I seldom hear anyone mentioning a good reason for having children other than for personal satisfaction, for example when was the last time that you heard someone say "I love my spouse so much that I want to have a child to him/her". There are a few exceptions but I believe that they are rare.
So what exactly are the reasons for having children, personal happiness. I don't know you tell me.
It appears that rational decison is a rare thing when it comes to having children. Don't you find that strange for "Intelligent Beings."
Nature has an amazing capacity to decide on birth, death and the survival of a species. When a species becomes to abundant for example : nature finds a method of diminishing one of the essential resources that the species needs, hence culling the species and restablishing balance.
In we do nothing, nature will run it's course and re-establish a balance but probably a lot more brutaly than we would choose to do ourselves. All we have to do is limit new birth, no one gets hurt, no one dies.. Whats so damned difficult to understand.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 09:17 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Khaptain
You are a strange one, that's for sure.
I don't think you've not had kids because you believe it will make any difference to the worlds population and resources, because it won't, and I don't think you're doing it to set an example to the rest of us, because it won't.
So you're either doing it because you don't know the value of children, or because you haven't managed to have any.
In this childless life, of which you are such an advocate, what will happen when you grow old, who will you have around you?
-
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 09:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
"I think it's a simple fear of responsibility"
To me, that comes under - Don't know the value of children, because if he did, he would overcome that fear.
Although, we are likely giving it too much thought. He might just say these things because he lives in an over populated area and wants everyone to stop having kids because he thinks that will make life more comfortable for himself.
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 10:09 GMT Khaptain
@ac
Nope, I currently work in the city and live in the country. In a sense I have the best of both worlds.
I do not live a luxury life but I do live a comfortable life.
There's no point in reading behind the lines, you will not find much. I have stated my thoughts and opinions and it really is all very simple. Not everyone has the same ideas and needs, these are just mine. Although I do firmly believe that most people have no idea at all as to what they want and that is "sad".
-
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 10:36 GMT Khaptain
No I do not think that everyone should stop having children but I do believe that people should seriously think about why they are having children and also to consider what future they will be bringing them into.
7 Billion people, how many more do we need, why can't we reduce the numbers and try harder to give everyone a reasonable life instead of giving everyone a mediocre life. We have the capacity and the intelligence to it, we just don't want to........
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 10:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
We have the capacity and the intelligence to it, we just don't want to........
No, in the blink of an eye, people would rather forgo all that to have kids. So it seems that you really don't know the value of children,
Besides, who's to say what the future holds, what discoveries and technological advancements will be made in the face of diminishing resources. Why prevent those opportunities?
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 11:05 GMT Khaptain
No, in the blink of an eye, people would rather forgo all that to have kids.
Et voila, the perfect example of our intelligence. Forego the well being of all for some personal satisfaction.
What the future holds is determined today, not tommorrow, having children or not , will not change that fact.
>Why prevent those opportunities?
Evolution won't stop if we are 1 Million, 7 Billion or 25 Trillion, so if the opportunites are to arise they will anyway..
Have you also considered the option that it might just be your child that invents the Doomsday machine, pushes the big red button, instegates the next world war. Mines won't thats for sure, lol.
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 12:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
You claim to be unaware as to why people feel the need to have kids and at the same time claim wholesale that they do it simply for their own selfish needs. You are wrong, you don't know why people have kids (you said that yourself), you only know why YOU don't. So you can't use it to support your argument, not that it does.
"Forego the well being of all for some personal satisfaction." Well being as defined by who exactly? You? For most people, having kids and grandkids counts enormously towards their well being. Your logic supersedes their need for children does it? Now who is forgoing the well being of others?
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 14:43 GMT Evil Auditor
@Khaptain & others re not having children
Khaptain, thank you for your comments. I think I understand you very well, no need having a beer together ;-)
@Others: I wonder how short-witted one can be. Do you think just one reason exists for not having kids? Rest assured, there are many of which a few are: do not feel the need, regard it as too expensive, do not like them, want to live an independent life, do not want to interfere with a perfect relationship, not wanting to bear the responsibility, do not want to wipe arses, cannot stand the noise etc.
Once a father of three accused me of being extremely selfish for not having kids because, as others here also pointed out, kids will be paying for my pension etc. I could have argued with economics and rising national deficit which would imply that, on average, each individual is costing the state more than it contributes. But before I could answer he added that, when we are getting old and becoming in need of care, he will be the one with kids looking after him. I came across this argument in this forum as well. Now tell me, who is selfish if this is a reason for producing offsprings... (My not so serious answer was: I can save all the money he is spending for his kids and when I'm old, I will be able to pay for lots of young ladies to look after me. That silenced him instantly.)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 09:45 GMT Khaptain
@AC
LOL, you really would need to come and have a beer with me, you would understand a hell of a lot afterwards.
The main reason that I do not want to have kids is very simple. I do not feel the need nor the desire to have any.
Am I setting an example, of course I am to myself, I choose to not have any and I am not having any, its very simple really.. If it also sets an example to others then fine if not it won't matter to me.
>So you're either doing it because you don't know the value of children, or because you haven't >managed to have any.
I neither love nor hate children, I am indifferent to them. The value of children is a concept that depends upon a multitude of parameters and context.
Without going into the gory details, yes I can definately confirm that I am capable of producing children.
>In this childless life, of which you are such an advocate, what will happen when you grow old, >who will you have around you?
Probably just as many people as you will, except that it won't be my children. When I can no longer fend for myself I see no purpose in continuing to live, I do not want to become a burden to myself or to others. At the end of my life I will die just as everyone else does, whether or not I am surrounded by my children will make no difference whatsover.
I lead a very healthy and very active life, I make my own choices where I can, I have a great wife and own a nice home in the country. I am happy with what I have and I feel no need whastover to have children , why is that such a hard concept to grasp.
The populace have a tendancy to think along only one very narrow path, I do not wish to travel down that same path, it makes me feel useless as a human being.
The planet won't care if I don't have children, I certainly don't care. The planet needs to breath, if by not having children it helps the planet and everyone then I am happy with my choice.
Children( human beings) are only a very small part of a very large picture. The extinction of the human race from the planet earth will probaby have "Zero" consequences in relation to the earths existence, well except for the polution that is.. No one will ever know we even existed.
The doomsday machine will not be an external device or catastrophe, it will be mankind itself.
.
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 10:05 GMT Anonymous Coward
"The main reason that I do not want to have kids is very simple. I do not feel the need nor the desire to have any.
I neither love nor hate children, I am indifferent to them
whether or not I am surrounded by my children will make no difference whatsover.
The planet won't care if I don't have children, I certainly don't care."
You say the above, which to me indicates an extremely existential nihilistic view point and at the same time profess to have great concern to the welfare of mankind. You simply don't add up, you're in denial about something.
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 10:31 GMT Khaptain
<quote>You say the above, which to me indicates an extremely existential nihilistic view point and at the same time profess to have great concern to the welfare of mankind. You simply don't add up, you're in denial about something.
</quote>
Yes I admit to having an "existential nihilistic " approach, I do not believe that we serve any real purpose. After all we are just a bunch of atoms floating about in space.
But the fact of this matter is that I do exist, I do have feelings and I do care about the welfare of mankind.
Am I in denial, I do not believe so. I believe that mankind could do so much better but unfortunately I do not posses the solution. Ayn Rand summed up a lot about our current society in Atlas Shrugged, unfortunately those colonies at the end of the book dont exist.
.
-
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 23:15 GMT Vladimir Plouzhnikov
"The extinction of the human race from the planet earth will probaby have "Zero" consequences in relation to the earths existence, well except for the polution that is."
It will just mean the complete failure of this planet to produce life capable of competing even on intrasystem scale, let alone on galactic or universal scale. Seven billion years of efforts with bugger all results. Other that that - no consequences at all...
-
Friday 13th January 2012 08:01 GMT Khaptain
@Vlad
<quote>It will just mean the complete failure of this planet to produce life capable of competing even on intrasystem scale, let alone on galactic or universal scale. Seven billion years of efforts with bugger all results. Other that that - no consequences at all...</quote>
Competing against who and competing for what exactlly ?
<quote>Seven billion years of efforts with bugger all results</quote>
There was no effort involved really, we are merely the product of a complex evolutionary process. So we certainly can't claim any credit for that.
Since we know of no other intelligent lifeform anywhere other than our own planet why would our disappearance matter. If we do survive for any futher future length of time, I presume that we would probably travel to other planets, consume all of the available resources and then move on, history has a tendancy to repeat itself. We would probably become responsable for the largest trail of pollution/destruction since time began.
I suppose we are a little like the Death Star, it's a good thing though that we don't posses one of those damned superlasers.
Can you think of any other species capable of so much destruction just for personal satisfaction.
-
Friday 13th January 2012 13:28 GMT Vladimir Plouzhnikov
"There was no effort involved really, we are merely the product of a complex evolutionary process."
How can there be a complex evolutionary process without effort? Dinosaurs and prehistoric forests toiling for 100s of millions of years, storing sunlight energy inside their bodies, plants making oxygene so that Khaptain could breathe, animals storing nutrients so that Khaptain could eat, bacteria breaking down Khaptain's waste products so that he would not sink in his own shit...
"Since we know of no other intelligent lifeform anywhere other than our own planet"
Not knowing about them is not a proof of their absence.
"Can you think of any other species capable of so much destruction just for personal satisfaction."
I know that each species acts for its personal satisfaction, because that's how evolution feedback works - If a wolf will ignore its hunger it will die and so will its species. If a chicken who outgrew the egg will not act for his satisfaction and hatch it will die and so will its species.
Now, you accept that humans are a product of the evolution. However, somehow all other species produced by the same evolution have turned out to be beautiful, peace-loving cuties who poop rainbows on regular basis but we, the ugly humans, producing hairless, crying, crawling, revolting babies who grow into greedy, promiscuous, regularly drunk monsters are the one exception?
Isn't it more logical to assume that the humankind, with its thirst for resources and inability to live "sustainably" was produced by that same evolutionary process specifically to be thirsty for resources and not being able to live "sustainably"?
Has it ever occurred to you that the evolution, having moved from pre-cellular to single-cell to multi-cell organisms to plants to animals to Khaptain, must not necessarily stop at the latter?
And if the evolution is to continue then, eventually, whether Khaptain or a post-Khaptain will run out of resources on this particular planet?
And when that happens, who will take the process of evolution beyond the planet?
Hint: that will be Khaptain's job.
But how will Khaptain know what he is supposed to do? There are no evolutionary manuals and leaflets printed in stone, lying on top of a mountain, as far as we know, at least.
That is actually simple - he will do things to achieve personal satisfaction and they will guide him to do the right thing even if he himself will not be capable of understanding why or what for.
-
Friday 13th January 2012 21:10 GMT Khaptain
Vlad, the evolutionary comedian
Effort always involves Energy but Energy does not involve effort.
Effort I believe is a concious decision that will require a certain amount of energy to perform.
Evolution did not require effort, but I agree that it did require energy.
Evolution is a hap hazard process that is constantly "evolving" in relation to the environment , the varying amount of elements, heat and light etc . These conditions do not require effort as effort implies intention. Evolution has no guide lines or path to follow, this is what gives the universe an infinite number of possibilities over which we, as human beings, have absolutely no absolute control.
>Has it ever occurred to you that the evolution, having moved from pre-cellular to single-cell to multi-cell organisms to plants to animals to Khaptain, must not necessarily stop at the latter?
Of course evolution will not stop but Human Beings will. Evolution brought forth and also removed the dinosaurs, why do you believe that Human Beings would escape the process. We are after all finite.
Personal satisfaction should not be confused with instinct. Instincts are inbuilt mechanisms that allow all of the animals to survive. Hunger is a signal to eat in order that we can restore energy, pain is a signal that we are causing damage to the systrem etc etc. The wolf is not eating for his pleasure , he is eating for his survival.
Personal satisfaction has no relevance to survival, it is something that we do for our pleasure, this is where we see the major difference between ourselves and most of the animals.
If the Khaptain were to survive, what we he do, he would try and develop any and all of the survival skills that he could. Personal satisfaction would not keep him fed or watered although instinct might.
>Not knowing about them is not a proof of their absence.
That sounds a lot like a Sky Fairy theory.............
Doomsday for the Human Being is merely a small part of a eternal evolutionary process, it is important not to confuse eternal evolution with eternal existance.
-
Monday 16th January 2012 13:04 GMT Vladimir Plouzhnikov
@Khaptain
You were right about one thing - I was joking. But only really half-joking.
"Personal satisfaction should not be confused with instinct. Instincts are inbuilt mechanisms that allow all of the animals to survive. Hunger is a signal to eat in order that we can restore energy, pain is a signal that we are causing damage to the system etc etc. The wolf is not eating for his pleasure , he is eating for his survival."
So, how does the wolf decide that he needs to eat to survive? Does he think "well, I need about 12000 calories to get me through the end of the month, should I go look for a Bambi or maybe visit the nearby farm and get me a goat"?
Of course, he feels hunger, he eats, he feels satisfied, for now. Satisfaction and pleasure is just the brain's interpretation of when things go right. Just like pain is an alarm signal that something is wrong. Both are instinctive and are a product of evolution.
Now, the main problem:
"Evolution is a hap hazard process that is constantly "evolving" in relation to the environment , the varying amount of elements, heat and light etc . These conditions do not require effort as effort implies intention. Evolution has no guide lines or path to follow, this is what gives the universe an infinite number of possibilities over which we, as human beings, have absolutely no absolute control."
The suggestion that evolution is some kind of random, haphazard process requires a leap of faith much greater than even belief in a bearded old man living on a cloud, who passes the time by throwing banana skins under our feet and enjoying the commotion that follows...
It is clear that the evolution goes along a certain path, from simple to ever more complex organisation of matter. From higher to lower entropy, if you please. So, if we have evolved as a product of that process it is logical to suppose that we are an "intended" part of it and there are evolutionary reasons for our traits and behaviour.
We may only begin to guess what those reasons are as we do not yet know the exact driving force and agents of actual evolution (as opposed to the natural selection, which is just one small part of the process). However, it seems obvious that if the evolving environment were to progress along its evolutionary path it needs to consume energy and resources and, therefore, expand its realm.
Nature, however, cannot expand beyond the boundary of one planet using solely "natural" means. Or if it can, it has found an easier solution - to evolve a walking computer with a pair of dexterous manipulators, also known as Homo sapiens, to do the job for it.
Again, obviously, a Homo Sapiens which will be content just to live in harmony with the environment would be useless for those evolutionary purposes. What you really need is a human which will constantly corner himself into necessity to invent, innovate and search for more resources. That way he will finally force himself off the planet to continue that same evolutionary expansion.
Before you complain again that all this requires constant intervention of an "intelligent designer" of some sort or other - it does not. It can just as easily be predetermined by the combination of the natural laws into which this universe has settled during or after the Big Bang.
Regarding your question: "Evolution brought forth and also removed the dinosaurs, why do you believe that Human Beings would escape the process."?
I do not necessarily say we will. But if that happens it will mean either of the two things:
a) We have served our purpose (like the dinosaurs, gracefully retired as birds after having built the sufficient oil and gas reserves) and have been replaced by our evolutionary successors, whoever that may be or
b) We have failed and, as the consequence, the evolutionary line developing on Earth has failed and the future of the universe will be in the hands of another line - sturdier, smarter or more cunning the us.
-
Monday 16th January 2012 21:08 GMT Khaptain
@Vlad the Wolf in sheeps clothes
Hi Vlad
I began to write yet another reponse but unfortunately I must concentrate on some personal work. I enjoyed reading your last reponse and I would like to concluce my saying that we should agree to disagree.
I do have an existential nihilistic approach, the futility of mankind for me is all to evident. Whereas you appear to have a more extropianistic approach.
Regardless of whos approach is correct, nature will continue its path, evolution will continue to produce new species but mankind has absolutely no garauntee to be within that future. He might , he might not.
In any event in order to leave this planet I think that evolution would require the production of another species that is capable of surviving within space itself. Obviously human beings have a long way to go before arriving at that point.
In order to return to the initial subject , one minute closer to doomsday. Since the day we left the oceans and for as long as we remain, we will always be neighbours with Doomsday. As powerfull as we think we are, there are far too many elements capable of wiping us out very quickly that we will always remain on the knifes edge..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 13:58 GMT Simon Neill
I agree that they are separate issues and should be treated as such. However, I would add that the entire thing is in fact bollocks and needless. I would disagree that a nice fast death to a nuke is scarier than watching the entire world slowly go to shit as crops die and everyone starves. SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!
-
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 12:33 GMT Ben Tasker
Unfortunately as logical as your argument, it'd fail through the lack of logic a lot of religious types show. I can see it now You: We're banning all religion and educating kids properly Them: What! Why? You: Because Humanity is doomed, and we think religion is part of the issue Them: We will pray for salvation, and encourage others to the same
-
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 12:54 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Khaptain -2
"Think how many problems would be resolved simply by reducing the population. There would be more farmland/food to go around, the available natural energies would last longer, we would automatically reduce pollution and waste, the forests would begin to grow/increase." It's funny that those are more a limitation of the current system than of any kind of population number. Take the first iteam you are worried about; farmland. Well, let us build skyscrappers to produce food. We grow our young humans in tower blocks, so why not young carrots? As for energies...well, there is a status quo to be maintained. And right now the idea that energy needs to be consumed and never replaced is, again, a facet of the current system. That will change; and many folks are looking into it. Maybe even if they find Mr Higgs they'll shed some light on some new chapter. Pollution is the flip side of the same coin. Again, a systemic issue, rather than a population one. Oh, what system am i talking about? Aye...capitalism....sort that and we're sorted.. :) With hope .-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 13:03 GMT itzman
We grow our young humans in tower blocks, so why not young carrots?
Try 'sunlight' And if you think you are going to use windmills to generate electric light, well the output from a windmill is about one percent of the solar insolation per unit area, so thats even worse .. I suppose you could have loads of nuclear reactors acting to generate energy to synthesise all the food.. ..but that's off the average green agenda, isn't it?
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 13:51 GMT Ken Hagan
The historical trend
The clock has stood at 7 minutes to midnight in 1980, 1968, 1960 and 1947. Apparently today is more dangerous than any of those times, but significantly less dangerous than in 1949 (3 minutes, when the USSR got their first A-bomb) or 1953 (2 minutes, the first H-bomb). The world now contains an unknown number of such weapons, some of them in the hands of quite deranged nutters. On the other hand, it no longer contains the USSR or Curtis LeMay. Apparently these two factors sorta cancel out. Yeah. That sounds scientific.-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 15:45 GMT Knochen Brittle
This Dumbsday Clock ...
... was never anything but political propaganda to terrorise Yanks into obedience to their Pentagovernment. Proof of the fact is that, upon the USAn warcriminals being deterred by Soviet parity from continuing to nuke anyone at the drop of a hat, they moved it *closer* to midnight. Therefore, for correct understanding, it is better to consider this gimmick in reverse ~ as a political counter heading inexorably down towards zero ability of the USA to monopolise power and become world dictator.
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 14:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
The ultimate irony of "evolution"
*If* you accept the premise that we are over-populating the planet and the only way to resolve this is by restriction (either voluntary or otherwise) on the production of children. Then you discount compulsory, as this requires a totalitarian regime which we don't have, then you are left with voluntary. Which leads to the situation where the "intelligent" members of society reduce their family size whilst the "less intelligent" will continue to breed like rabbits. End result an evolution into a more stupid race. Oh well, sounds like we are doomed whichever way we go then :-)-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 14:40 GMT Khaptain
@All
Yes I have put my money where my mouth is. I have taken the liberal and freeminded decision not to have children. We have a beautiful planet, nature has provided us with everything and what do I see, greed, destruction , polution and f***cking lawyers. Is this what you guys call freedom of choice. The politicians, bankers and various other Capitilistic, Greedy bastards have done there utmost to ensure that you and I as individuals have very little choice. As an example, people do not get paid in relation to their labour, they get paid in relation to what their employer decides to give them. When you go to a supermarket you can only buy what the supermarket has decided they can make a profit from, it has nothing to do with your actual needs, ad infinitum. Having children has nothing to do with personal choice, it is more about personal greed and egotistical desire. There is no such thing as "Human Survival" as mentioned above read Richard Dawkins, the gene pool is far stronger than the human being, it will definately give you some food for thought. How many of you "Fathers" would be able to provide for your children if the state did not furnish benefits, unless of course you are one of those overpaid people that have a salary which does not reflect your actual capacity. Do you truly believe that you could support your entire familly "alone", imagine for a moment that you really did have to build the barn, dig the garden, shoot some wild pigs etc..... The more mouths you had to feed the less likely you would have a grin on your face. The contemporary First World Human Being is basically a selfish bastard that knows no better than his own desires, unfortunately he is seldom capable of achieving those desires just by the fruit of his own labours. ( Someone always pays the price for your "apparent" wealth.) Why are the children never taught to "Think for themselves". They are always taught how to think in a way that will benefit those above and certainely not for the child itself. Our society has been nurtured to a point whereby individuals can no longer fend for themselves, they are completely at the mercy of the state. How many truly Autonomous people do you know, Ok lets say someone with at least 20% autonomy. When the state falls through, and it will, just how will you feed all your children ? Over-Population is your legacy to your children, they will have less space, less choice and an even smaller understanding of their own potiential. Sounds f***cking wonderfull. No, I don't believe in some kind of totalinarian society, but I do believe that we as intelligent beings should be capable of a little bit more forethought in relation to what is self evident. "When you throw a piece of meat to starving dogs, how civil will you expect them to be ". [Why don't the carraige returns appear in the preview]-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 15:54 GMT Ben Tasker
@Khaptain
You're of course right about 'Human Survival', I simply phrased it that way for the sake of brevity. I support a family on a piss-poor wage (compared to my output) and without benefits. Admittedly I struggle to do so, but it is possible. I don't of course run a farm so haven't felt the need to build any barns or slaughter any pigs. My kids are taught to think for themselves, anything I can furnish them with to potentially help them in the future is good. I haven't a clue about farming, so no I won't be teaching them that myself. I believe the idea is, for better or worse, it's civilities that set us apart from those starving dogs. Doesn't always work that way it's true, but I'm not convinced we'd be a better race if it never worked that way. I'm curious as to how you expect any of us to teach kids everything you list? I can't think of anyone _ANYWHERE_ that is capable of living life purely on the back of his own labours. Even if you wanted to live the Goode Life, would you not need to purchase seeds (which would involve someone elses work?). As it stands, Animals tend to starve to death if there isn't sufficient food around. Humans do to, but there are people who at least try to get others food. -
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 20:23 GMT Syldra
@Khaptain
So if I can't pay for all my children alone, I'm a weight for the system and if I do have enough money it's because I'm overpaid ?
If I really had to "build the barn", then I believe I wouldn't have stopped at 4 kids because I would need hands to help me. More kids now would mean more hands later. And if I had the need to hunt for my food, that would mean even more kids because accidents do happen. Can't really take the chance to have a shortage of hands because the wild boar killed our youngest now can we ?
I can respect your decision of not having children, even if I don't understand it. But don't try to pass it as the one good "self evident" thing to do because it is not. Over population is not the problem, it's over utilization of resource that is. There's room for far more if you don't waste what you don't need. There's already food enough for everyone, but we (developped countries) prefer to throw it in the garbage instead of sharing it with those who need.
-
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 14:12 GMT Tom 13
Ho-hum.
More pointless propaganda from fascist bigots. A realistic assessment would have moved the clock forward 4 minutes because of the other group of irrational fascists in Iran who are intent on using one to implement the next Final Solution to the Jewish Problem, with no regard to possible outcomes of that action.-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 16:10 GMT Knochen Brittle
Rich, Creamy Hypocrisy
... to complain of antiquated propaganda whilst parroting your own warmonglerish modern variety. And naturally, whomsoever faileth to follow the Imperial Diktat and dares defend himself becomes the 'New Hitler' who must be scheduled for destruction, along with whatever nation produced him, to save our precious withering flower of 'democracy', of course. But really, this pisspoor political dementia you so proudly display has meantime worn pretty thin. However, to stretch the gaps even further, please provide links for any facts you claimed and your working definition of 'fascist', thanks!
-
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 14:56 GMT Khaptain
@John P
Personally speaking my decision was made voluntarily after having lived and worked in several countries of differing political and religous regimes. After seeing that the same damned mess was everywhere, albeit wearing a different hat, I took the decision not to add my genes to the pool. That was 20 odd years ago and I have never changed my mind. [¨PS - Without going into the details I know that my "genes" are perfectly capable of reproducing] Quick call the helpdesk my Carriage Returns have disappeared again.
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 15:10 GMT Debe
Arbitrary
What are they going to do if it reaches midnight and we aren’t all turned to ash by flaming nuclear death? Of course the answer is go by seconds of course... right untill they run out of them and then they're buggered. It’s all a bit arbitrary isn’t it? Anyone can make random stuff up, infact i will. I hereby declare the cupcake count of terror. We are currently at 4 cupcakes to annihilation, three if I get peckish after lunch…-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 15:15 GMT Khaptain
@Debe
Time is infinite, they cannot run out, there will always be a remaining divisable element even though we don't know the name for it yet. Cupcake sounds fine. Just remember that you must always split that last remaining piece cupcake in two, that way you can always have your cake and eat it too.
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 19:02 GMT retkirnov
Tick Tock Goes The Corpus Clock
Through-out all recorded history the unexplained, the hiding of the truth, facts and fictions alike have been an on going conspiracy. The most current being the 2012 conspiracy per say.
However when you open your mind put down your smart phone, turn off your tv, unplug from the iNet and reflect about what you think you know, think you have read, think is real or unreal...
is it not justified by your self; what is and what is not.
Choose to believe is always in the end up to you and only you.
Sift through the arguments for or against a particular theory will leave you with a head ache. Like this one "Revelations" written so long ago however the writings disturbingly are so familiar to events in our world today. Is it a conspiracy? Depends on who you ask I suppose.
Have a look here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIVjn_mrJVU and remember in the end ...
You Decide.
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 20:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
So let me get this straight....
We're 17 minutes to midnight, but stockpiles of nukes are being cut by the major powers, and the only use of nukes that seems realistic is a massive counterstrike against a rogue state like Iran or North Korea, and only if that rogue state knowingly commits suicide and nukes a neighbor first. Personally, that sounds more like 6 AM in the morning and that mankind is fairly safe from nuclear self-immolation.
Maybe the scientists know about the alien invasion that is coming and will certainly require us to go nuclear so at least a few of us have a chance to survive!!
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 02:35 GMT heyrick
WTF?
So when there is nothing specific for the world to be afraid of (what, are they blind?), it suffices to now be afraid of imaginary things?
The only clock that scares me is the one I know is about to ring when I've had a night of not being able to sleep...
And yes, Happy 2012. I await seeing the Mayans proved wrong. ;)
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 11:34 GMT Mips
Clocks
A clock is a rather naive representation but it has been used many times and it is always a few seconds from midnight. However the problem and solution may be one and the same: if we were to have a nuclear conflict tomorrow then the resulting nuclear winter would resolve all our global warming issues. So the solution is a nuclear war. Only one question: whose backyard are we going to use?
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 12:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
Selfish and irresponsible
Having children is fine, if you can afford to support them properly yourself and do not expect anyone else to be forced to help you.
The decision to have children is an important one, and should be made taking into consideration all relevant factors. Most people do not think about this decision before making it. There are a large number of individuals of little education and meagre means who have learned only that having children entitles them to leech off others who work for a living.
Any person with an ounce of intelligence, looking at the decision rationally, can choose when they want to have children and how many. If they can look at the world as it is today and see that there are limited resources, then a decision to increase the population by making more than two new people is a reprehensible demonstration of extreme selfishness and irresponsibility.
I may have children one day. When I do I will ensure that decent values are imparted to them, that they receive a fitting eduction, and I will PAY FOR THEIR UPBRINGING MYSELF.
There is no reasonable argument for forcing honest working people to pay for others' children. Such a structure only encourages the expectation of low-life to have everything handed to them on a plate for no effort, and perpetuates this attitude over generations.
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 15:26 GMT Bernard M. Orwell
Children
We have one child, and have taken a deliberate decision to not have anymore directly because both my wife and I feel that human population is near out of control. Since the 1950's (not that long ago) the population of the planet has exploded and is set to expand exponentially, near doubling in the not distant future.
Balance that against (in the UK) there are more than 30,000 children requring permanent adoption and yet only 83 were placed into permanent homes during 2010-2011.
We felt the choice was clear; restrict ourselves to one birth and then adopt. I urge anyone thinking they'd like a large(r) family to consider the same path as we've taken.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
