Politics by the uninformed.

71 posts / 0 new
Last post
dinamort's picture
Your inability to understand

Your inability to understand simple irony is not of my concern.

Sir Random's picture
The fact that I can mislead

The fact that I can mislead you to think I did not understand is extremely concerning, however.

dinamort's picture
I tell you, that's not of my

I tell you, that's not of my concern! Am I bovvered? And I'm not replying again and again just to have the last word!

Sir Random's picture
Oh dear, where has the

Oh dear, where has the original topic gone? I think we've gone so far off we've lost it..... I can't see it anywhere....

mykcob4's picture
A quick update. Last night

A quick update. Last night the Pres., VP, and sen. E. Warren all endorsed Hillary. Yea!!!! VP Joe Biden delivered a scathing speech that accurately put things into perspective about Trump and the repuklicans. He said that Trump tried to intimidate the court, which is a felony. The repukes always commit this crime when the impartial court rules against them. Joe pointed out the irony of republicans condemning comments made by Trump about U.S. District Judge Gonsalo Curiel, because they refuse to even confirm or even have hearings on SCOTUS nominee Chief Judge Merrick Garland.
The republicans think that a man that intimidates a federal judge is wrong for doing so, but are holding out on a current nominee to let that same man make an appointment to the SCOTUS!
Intimidating the court is a felony: https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/partiv/titlei/chapter268/sect...
So Trump can squawk all he wants claiming that Hillary Clinton will go to jail for using a private e-mail server (not a crime then or even now), but the fact is his little veiled threat constitutes a felony and he should be charged, arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to a federal prison. Then maybe he will learn that you can't behave in such a manner.

Nyarlathotep's picture
When someone makes a

When someone makes a statement that involves numbers, I pay close attention. For example, less than 1 month ago, we had someone here lamenting about the shrinking population (http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/few-questions-atheists). Now we are told the sky is falling because of population growth. A quick check of wikipedia says that the growth rate is positive (just over 1%) and falling.

When someone tells you something is too large/small, I like to ask them how they arrived at that number. When they can't tell you have that number was arrived at (or at least link to an expert who can), I start to get skeptical. When they can't even tell you what the number even is, the skeptic alarms start to ring in my ears. For example:

Person A: There are too many immigrants in our country!
Me: How many would be the right amount?
Person A: What are you, some kind of immigrant lover?!
Me: (me running away!)

dinamort's picture
Number are relative. There

Number are relative. There were fashion websites, a couple of years ago (I assume they still exist), that were supposed to calculate approximatively your ecological footprint. As a result, you usually got a message telling you that if every human on earth had the same way of life as yours (meaning living at less than 4 people in a 20m² flat, eating meat once a week, using public transports instead of riding a bike or walking, etc) it would require four or five planets to provide the necessary resources (and I let you guess what it's like if you frequently travel by plane). Of course western countries have developed too greedy habits and will have to change them. But if we consider how the consumption habits of a small part of the world population have damaged ecosystems, it seems we have little choice. We can try to keep these habits and impede other peoples to reach correct living standards (because they have a smaller footprint if they starve and die as soon as possible); or, if we are not comfortable with using the majority of human beings as slaves for providing cheap products for Westerners, and if we accept that people of China and India (and of other countries used as manufactures) have a right to live comfortably and even to drive a car and wear decent clothes and use computers, then we clearly have to reduce drastically the exploitation of natural resources and the amount of our rubbish production. And this can be achieved by reducing the population, and by this way reducing its global needs.
How to reduce global population? According to Malthus, disease and wars are natural unpleasant checks; I don't feel like praising them, and unfortunately they keep doing their horrid job. If China's previous one-child policy was too authoritative to my mind, stopping encouraging large families would be a good start. Instead of paying child benefit that sometimes encourages people to produce children while they can't afford their education, making education free of charge for children already here seems fairer to me. We could imagine some allowance for one-child families only, or for women who don't have children (since it can be harder to measure it for men).
There are plenty of numbers in Bartlett's conference, and he is definitely a better mathematician than I am. I know it's quite long but it's a conscience raiser. I can't help to cite it once more, even if I get boring:

Nyarlathotep's picture
Lets define the population as

Lets define the population as P(t); from the numbers on wikipedia, dP/dt ≈ 0.013 (meaning the population is growing yearly by 1.13%), and d^2P/dt^2 ≈ -0.0001 (that the rate of the rate of population growth is negative). It seems you are advising some pretty radical stuff for a 'problem' that seems to be fixing itself.
RomainD - "Number are relative."

I can't think of anything less relative than numbers.

Picture the scene: Someone comes up to you and offers to stomp on your foot the number of times you request. You are about to answer 0, but your friend then suggests that since "numbers are relative" you might as well answer 50! I'm guessing in that situation you would change your mind about numbers being relative very quickly.

dinamort's picture
Right, more exactly, numbers

Right, more exactly, numbers [of what can be considered overpopulation] are relative. They are relative to available resources, at least. If you organize a party and prepare some big good cake for your guests, you calculate its size according to the number of guests. If some of them bring unexpected friends of theirs, without having told you, and if you want to feed them all equitably, each part of the cake will be smaller, and all your guests will eat and remain hungry. If you're a jerk, you tell your surplus guests to piss off. If you want to avoid an embarrassing dilemma, you try first to tell politely those you invite not to bring extra people.

If we can multiply resources at will, everything is all right, then: extra guests will just have to bring food with them.
You can be right about the rest, and I can be overreacting; the future will decide who is wrong. However, I can't help wondering what good a 10-billion population (or more) is to bring. There is no place left for people who need a bit of solitude. Yes, the problem is fixing itself, through war, disease, famine and the "foresight of the difficulties attending the rearing of a family" (T.R. Malthus, Essay on the Principle of Population, ch. IV). Is it a fair price? Keeper of Worlds is right in some way, and those who need solitude (in order not to have their religion criticized, for example) know how to use weapons to make it.

Sir Random's picture
I suppose nuclear weapons

I suppose nuclear weapons could be helpful......


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.