Stop breeding dam it.

Mason- said:
It's not a solution I'm advocating for more an observation of reality.

It's not an ought, it's an is.

People are inherently selfish and will care about their own interests. It's the way it's always been and it's the way it'll always be.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's all good and well to be observant but is it wrong to even put the idea out there? to try? The first step is to actually have the idea, the first step isn't sitting on your ass and watch the world implode.
 
dowie said:
Doubtful - there tends to be the slightly ironic argument that people in the west should reduce the number of kids they have while also simultaneously welcoming immigration as we need more workers to support the ageing population etc.. The contradiction doesn't seem to bother the publications pushing both views.
Click to expand...

It's not a contradiction, because adult immigrants can start working immediately, whereas kids have to grow up for at least 18 years before they're viable for the workforce. Immigration is ideal for countries with low or negative population growth.

Japan is currently grappling with this problem, and their low immigration rate is a big part of that problem. Unfortunately, several thousand years of deeply ingrained isolationism, exceptionalism, and xenophobia can't be eradicated overnight.

'Japan accepts it needs immigrants for its economy to survive – so why is it still so resistant to change?'
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Yes, that's all good and well to be observant but is it wrong to even put the idea out there? to try? The first step is to actually have the idea, the first step isn't sitting on your ass and watch the world implode.
Click to expand...
Well your advocating for a solution that avoids war and I'm telling you that in my opinion that new solution, whatever it may be, you come up with will lead to a war anyway. As we've spoken about before.

The only reason the west hasn't been fighting wars the last 70 years is because of nuclear weapons. They bring perpetual, stagnant peace, because their use brings a victory that is Pyrrhic to its extreme. Which means you can't resolve your conflicts any more. See the russia poisonings last year. If that happened and there were no nukes, we'd be at war. But we're not, we slap sanctions on them and expel diplomats, whoopy ****. We are in a very awkward state internationally right now. Where the big powers all have different ideas and all want different things and they can't, like in the past, fight about it. So we all just sit here and the temperature just keeps rising.
 
Last edited:
I think people are underestimating the amount of changes that will happen over the next 30 years that will mean we don't need as many young people to support the aging populace. AI will replace a lot of jobs, there will be more robots and automation for things like transport and house hold chores, we just won't need as many people working. So with that in mind we should be having less children to protect the environment. I don't think it's the West that has a problem with too many children though, places like India, South America, China and Africa need to address their population growth.
 
Climate change alarmists are all the same, what they want is more government control over private business through regulation (economic Fascism) because they hate free market capitalism (like Hitler did) and less freedom for the masses who have to live by an increasing set of rules set by the government because they're lefty collectivists. You don't need to nationalise business if you can control everything they do through government regulation which is what Nazi Germany did.

I'm not saying that no regulation at all is good but excessive regulation and top down control over everything by an effectively totalitarian government is terrible.
 
Roar87 said:
I think people are underestimating the amount of changes that will happen over the next 30 years that will mean we don't need as many young people to support the aging populace. AI will replace a lot of jobs, there will be more robots and automation for things like transport and house hold chores, we just won't need as many people working. So with that in mind we should be having less children to protect the environment. I don't think it's the West that has a problem with too many children though, places like India, South America, China and Africa need to address their population growth.
Click to expand...
The majority of predictions of 'tech in 30 years' in the past has been woefully optimistic. I'll believe it when I see it.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Then to make it fair, he needs to call an emergency and ban all hand guns as that kills so many more people!
Click to expand...

Except, you haven't thought that idea through to its logical conclusion. Not surprising really. You want him to ban all hand guns would provoke the worlds largest standing army. This army would win "your side" ( as in you, Raymond). These laws would then be more vigorously defended and imposed.

to be consistent you know, which I am sure is not your strong point :p
Click to expand...

A little bit stronger than your grasp of the English language and making false, specious claims... Like hack, eh? :rolleyes:
 
Mason- said:
Well your advocating for a solution that avoids war and I'm telling you that in my opinion that new solution, whatever it may be, you come up with will lead to a war anyway. As we've spoken about before.

The only reason the west hasn't been fighting wars the last 70 years is because of nuclear weapons. They bring perpetual, stagnant peace, because their use brings a victory that is Pyrrhic to its extreme. Which means you can't resolve your conflicts any more. See the russia poisonings last year. If that happened and there were no nukes, we'd be at war. But we're not, we slap sanctions on them and expel diplomats, whoopy ****. We are in a very awkward state internationally right now. Where the big powers all have different ideas and all want different things and they can't, like in the past, fight about it. So we all just sit here and the temperature just keeps rising.
Click to expand...

It might eventually lead to war, but all I am saying is, at least you've given it a shot.
 
Mason- said:
The majority of predictions of 'tech in 30 years' in the past has been woefully optimistic. I'll believe it when I see it.
Click to expand...

True but automation is already happening, China for example is investing heavily in it as they have a real problem with an ageing population combined with workforce costs rising due to increased living standards. Factories over there are shedding jobs with a production line once requiring 50 - 100 workers going down to 1 or 2 on quality control.

India has the opposite problem, they have a huge amount of young people entering the workforce but don't have the jobs to provide, especially when it comes to quality jobs. Trouble is automated production lines are very close to being able to produce goods in western countries at the same cost of outsourcing to poorer countries ($1 tshirts for example). Should be seen as a good thing in some ways as the work is terrible but the young still need jobs.

Whether or not we have automation at a level where it can care for the elderly I'm not so optimistic but things are going to dramatically change in the workforce and governments / society need to work out who is going to benefit from it.
 
Mason- said:
The majority of predictions of 'tech in 30 years' in the past has been woefully optimistic. I'll believe it when I see it.
Click to expand...

I mean we have AI, robot vacuums and self driving cars now, these technologies will only improve, be expanded upon and become more popular and mainstream. Also there was actually some good past predictions of what technology we would have now, 1960's science fiction which includes flying cars wasn't one of these.
 
One of the biggest limiting factors to ai becoming mainstream in everything is power/energy.

Once battery tech has improved (solid state and/or graphene based) we should see more and more complex devices become available. What about a car that could do 1000 miles between charges and it only takes 10-15 minutes to charge it. Cost will also come down considerably. Cheap affordable, renewable energy and good energy storage solutions would also go along way to helping some of the developing nations. Should one of those 3rd world countries be sat on a gold mine of materials required for the advancement of technology they won't be 3rd world for long. Look at Shenzhen in China for example, 30 years ago it was a fishing village of barely 30,000 people. Now its a global powerhouse in technology with a population of 12 million.
 
What she should be saying is certain parts of the world need to start having less kids...

Mainly the places where they can barely feed themselves already.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
What she should be saying is certain parts of the world need to stop having less kids...

Mainly the places where they can barely feed themselves already.
Click to expand...

Stop having less kids? I assume you just mean stop having kids/have less kids. That can't/won't happen, watch the Ted video posted above.

Well, it will, but only when having lots of children isn't of economic benefit to them.
 
Zefan said:
It's a really poorly thought out point. The growth has already happened, it can't be avoided without undermining support for the older generations.

Watch this:

Click to expand...

Good video. Makes the problem with reducing birth rates really quite obvious, while also demonstrating the retirement/pensions problem rather well. From that perspective, we need to maintain the current birth rate while radically rethinking retirement to fit a stagnant (rather than growing) population.

Roar87 said:
I think people are underestimating the amount of changes that will happen over the next 30 years that will mean we don't need as many young people to support the aging populace. AI will replace a lot of jobs, there will be more robots and automation for things like transport and house hold chores, we just won't need as many people working. So with that in mind we should be having less children to protect the environment.
Click to expand...

It's an easy thing to be flippant about. But imagine getting it wrong. Today's aging population problem would become a crisis within a generation or two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom