Let us talk about 'Civility'

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT
 

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Lil devils x:

image
Although we need to approach everything we do critically and with much planning and foresight, giving up entirely is simply not acceptable.

I see what you are doing here. Get rid of the people and keep the snakes. :p

Since when have I actually written we should 'give up'? Secondly, yes. The fact of the matter is climate change debate has been focussed on human impact via the environment, and I think it's enirely unhelpful to ignore, and that there is a solid moral argument, that whether humans should sacrifice their own seurity and happiness in the faceof an ecological collapse and predicate ideas of human survival exclusively in terms of protecting what biodiversity that remains as opposed to protecting hauman happiness.

A holistic and longterm look of human suffering, and the moral justifications of instead of simply trying to secure human happiness, we should secure longterm viability of Earth.

The Earth will not magically improve. We will not have as if some smooth transition back to Holocene-esque conditions.

We need to be realistic and start talking in the time frames of millenia and perhaps entire epochs.

Which is why I find your uncritical idea of some utopian future so dismally maladjusted, so blatantly unrealistic (on every level), and damn right cruel to pretend as if there will be magically no hardship, horror, and abject suffering if we simply built fucking stupid 1950s esque Moon-colony style artworks and presenting them as worthy of actual consideration.

Believe it or not, the moral and just action in the face of climate change might be incredibly horrible. That it might require active sacrifice. Yes, there is a real argument whether we need to be brutal in the face of protecting total ecology, no matter how much temporal human suffering it may cause. Because objectively speaking even without deforestation, a 2* rise still means 40% of the Amazon gone.

The problem of the climate change debate is painting it exclusively in termsof impact, and particularly that of impacts on humans, is forgetting the very real factor of and it will continue to be a thing for a ridiculously long time.

And in the face of such an unfathomable stretch of time, active sacrifice and brutal policing of human consumption is nothing at all.

my quote from above:

I am not pretending we will not have to address problems as they arise, of course we will, but this will be a much better course for mankind than the current dynamic of wealthy hoard everything to keep the people in poverty so they can have power over them and keep holding civilization back.

I am not in any way "Pretending" all problems will be magically solved by building self sustaining future cities, you again are attempting to apply things that are not even remotely accurate.

We are on course to lose the amazon before there is a chance to rise due to over logging as it is. The Amazon is currently being plundered for it's resources ALREADY. We ALREADY have to address creating self sustaining artificial environments to counter this or there will be nothing left regardless. I am EXPECTING this to be for the long term, why do you think the focus is on self sustaining artificial environments rather than on temporary shelters? I am focusing on trying to save as many people as possible because yes, saving people IS my priority, and find your desire for sacrifice and restricting of consumption as being far more impossible than changing what is consumed. Shifting consumption to biodegradable, recyclable, and renewable > police consumption. Quit being such a sadist. Yes, I get it, you like snakes more than humans and want humans to suffer. I want to focus on reducing human suffering and in fact can expand human consumption, just we change what is being consumed.

In the end, the Amazon very well could be lost, I am not convinced we are not already past the tipping point, but whether or not we lose the Amazon does not mean we give up on trying to save as many people as we can and change and adapt. I do not that as the end game should it happen. The way I view the stuff they are currently designing to colonize Mars is what we very well may need here to save mankind. That is not some Moon-colony style artworks you are discussing here, it very well may be the only chance people will have with what is to come. The earths rotation is already being affected with the melting ice, the poles are already moving, of course this will have an impact on the magma and earths weather patterns before we even get to the rise. I see artificial environments as being the only real viable option at this point as there is no way to actual guarantee any outdoor environment will be sustained.

Lil devils x:
That is just it though, these plans CAN be implemented in the real world.

Right, I'm going to try to snip this down a lot because you're having similar conversations with other posters and I don't want to run over their points again or force you to retype the same thing many times.

not unlike what we do already to design and build schools and hospitals. Just think on a much larger scale.

Have you seen the output of the health and education systems? Can you honestly say to yourself that they treat people fairly and don't distinguish between wealth / proximity to power? How do you think this would be any different?

Locally here a group purchased a warehouse here and set up machinery and allowed people in the community to use it. Sort of like a " community recreation center" but instead of basketball courts and football fields, they put in die cut machines, 3d printers, welding machines, engraving machines, even professional embroidery machines. They keep adding machines to it as they accumulate them for people to go in and use. I completely love this concept as it opens access to anyone to be able to build what they wish really with minimal personal resources.

And that's a nice local community project, but doesn't address the largescale waste of energy. You are assuming that people have a right to have what they want and use as much resources as they want. This is something I fundamentally disagree with - for a green future, there needs to be sacrifice in terms of what people use and receive.

In a world of rampant corruption and lobbying" not all the world, some people have much less corruption than others because they passed laws to prevent that from happening and actually address the problem and hold people accountable rather than reward the bad guys. That is all a part of addressing the wealthy and removing their grip on democracy. Star by electing more Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sander's into office, the more likely we are to pass legislation needed to block corruption, We just need a whole hell of a lot more of them in order to accomplish this. The incentive is gained via democracy. The wealthy few are physically outnumbered by the poor. We get the poor to vote in the best interests of their future through expanding education and passing anti corruption laws.

Now, I respect what Ocasio-Cortez has achieved, but there is a leap of faith between "electing more diverse individuals" to "reducing corruption". The working class are just as susceptible to corruption as anyone else - the only reason corruption usually stays near the top is that there is no reason to bribe poorer people. That's how it works. Having a couple of upstanding individuals doesn't change that. You need a fundamental change to the lobbying / fund-raising political structure, not a change of individuals.

There's also the issue that, regardless of geographical background, the people who get fast-tracked into politics are inherently vastly different people to me and the people I interact with. But that's almost certainly getting too far off track, so I'll just reiterate my general objection to any belief that this could be achieved in the existing political structures. I mean, you can't even convince people to give up guns, for a start...

The designs are actually chosen via competition, they are voted on by scientists globally. The requirements for the competition mandate the elimination of poverty and inequality by giving them equal access as part of the "self sustaining" design itself. Scientists from all over the world have been voting on these designs and improving upon them for a good number of years now. The "poor" will have their poverty eliminated in the design, thus they will no longer actually be " poor". Via democracy, they will have just as much say as anyone else. My vision utilizes the fact that the poor outnumber the wealthy so can thus make democracy work in their favor if they realize how to best use the system to do so, so my first step to accomplishing this is to help teach " the masses" how to overcome the "dizinformation blitz" that is meant to keep them bickering and powerless and unite against the wealthy to do so via voting.

It's pie in the sky idealism (should have had real engineers vote on it, not scientists). It is a demonstrator for new technology, not a test of feasibility.

Via democracy, the poor currently have as much say as anyone else, right? So how come we still have all these issues?

The thing is, ultimately your future vision requires overcoming a large number of the problems we are currently fighting today, but doesn't actually provide a means of making that transition. So my question is, why bother with the greenhouse cities? Fix the problems and we don't actually need the greenhouse cities any more.

I mean, on the one hand, I am a born cynic. But on the other hand, someone needs to ask the questions - how can we do this? Do we actually need to do this? Are we even addressing the right problems through it?

Anyone else think Lil devils x dreams of future cities is reminiscent of the dreams of future cities from the early and mid 20th century, when people had a weird spirit of optimism for some reason? And, never to be fulfilled, partially due to technical issue, and mostly due to people not actually trying?

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Ehhh, I mean it's kind of a reductive statement. Violence is a pretty effective tool, all things considered throughout history. Guns don't shoot fascists by themselves.

Don't have a problem with killing fascists, it's just that you have to roll the dice and see who you get to replace them, and all you know for sure is that whoever you get, they support killing their political enemies.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
I mean in a quantifiable examination of some of the predictive reports of a 3-4 degree catastrophic event. Collectively, as per the human race,and the often overlooked aspect of the total biodiversity of the planet anbd measuring from acollective idea that living in a world without a categorical extinction event that we caused is objectively better than living in one that we did cause...

I think it's fair to say a better future is impossible.

In that sense, yeah. But while, in one sense, we're facing the worst disaster ever, in another we're seeing the same old stuff, rich people ruining it for poor people (who might be helping them, or ignoring the obvious or whatever), just bigger and better. Compared to say, colonialism and the industrial revolution, the impending disaster doesn't look so bad as when you are comparing it to "deciding not to have a disaster". Or, hell, to a possible nuclear holocaust that was firmly on the table until fairly recently.

It helps, though, that future generations will focus on the US when appointing blame, so there's that.

Thaluikhain:
Anyone else think Lil devils x dreams of future cities is reminiscent of the dreams of future cities from the early and mid 20th century, when people had a weird spirit of optimism for some reason? And, never to be fulfilled, partially due to technical issue, and mostly due to people not actually trying?

Funny enough I decorate in mid century modern minimalist and my Mom tells me all the mini dresses and boots I wear with my long flowing hair remind her of what they wore when she was growing up. X D

Yes, I am aware I have a weird spirit of Optimism. It is frustrating to me that we really could have accomplished so much more if people simply tried to actually do so instead of complain about how bad it is. I am not going to pretend that building for the future will suddenly solve all the worlds problems, but I see it as being a start. We need to build in solutions to the problems as part of the actual design and structures so that in the end there will be less other problems that still need to be addressed.

Being Hopi, all I heard forever was that technology and consumption would kill the earth and everyone on it, THIS is a core part of Hopi religion, but I have always thought it didn't have to that people have the capabilities to use technology to save everyone instead and create a great paradise on earth if people simply focused their efforts to do so. That these things are within our power (as Human beings) to accomplish. I have seen that trying to "brutally police consumption" has failed miserably and that is why we are where we are at. They have to approach it from the angle of " change what is consumed to be less harmful" Hell in some instances, It may even be possible to change it to " what is consumed is beneficial". I see MANY possibilities if people just are willing to unite to do so. Uniting people to do anything but make bigger messes and destroy everything seems to be the primary hang up though. You can get people to unite to bicker fight and make a huge ugly mess, but trying to get them to unite to do stuff that will help them often seems to be out of reach. Funny enough, that too is a part of Hopi religion, and the reason why Hopi have always believed that people will use it to destroy everything. I am not seeing that my elders are wrong, but rather I have hope that people can change this if they want to enough to actually take action.

Catnip1024:

Lil devils x:
That is just it though, these plans CAN be implemented in the real world.

Right, I'm going to try to snip this down a lot because you're having similar conversations with other posters and I don't want to run over their points again or force you to retype the same thing many times.

not unlike what we do already to design and build schools and hospitals. Just think on a much larger scale.

Have you seen the output of the health and education systems? Can you honestly say to yourself that they treat people fairly and don't distinguish between wealth / proximity to power? How do you think this would be any different?

Locally here a group purchased a warehouse here and set up machinery and allowed people in the community to use it. Sort of like a " community recreation center" but instead of basketball courts and football fields, they put in die cut machines, 3d printers, welding machines, engraving machines, even professional embroidery machines. They keep adding machines to it as they accumulate them for people to go in and use. I completely love this concept as it opens access to anyone to be able to build what they wish really with minimal personal resources.

And that's a nice local community project, but doesn't address the largescale waste of energy. You are assuming that people have a right to have what they want and use as much resources as they want. This is something I fundamentally disagree with - for a green future, there needs to be sacrifice in terms of what people use and receive.

In a world of rampant corruption and lobbying" not all the world, some people have much less corruption than others because they passed laws to prevent that from happening and actually address the problem and hold people accountable rather than reward the bad guys. That is all a part of addressing the wealthy and removing their grip on democracy. Star by electing more Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sander's into office, the more likely we are to pass legislation needed to block corruption, We just need a whole hell of a lot more of them in order to accomplish this. The incentive is gained via democracy. The wealthy few are physically outnumbered by the poor. We get the poor to vote in the best interests of their future through expanding education and passing anti corruption laws.

Now, I respect what Ocasio-Cortez has achieved, but there is a leap of faith between "electing more diverse individuals" to "reducing corruption". The working class are just as susceptible to corruption as anyone else - the only reason corruption usually stays near the top is that there is no reason to bribe poorer people. That's how it works. Having a couple of upstanding individuals doesn't change that. You need a fundamental change to the lobbying / fund-raising political structure, not a change of individuals.

There's also the issue that, regardless of geographical background, the people who get fast-tracked into politics are inherently vastly different people to me and the people I interact with. But that's almost certainly getting too far off track, so I'll just reiterate my general objection to any belief that this could be achieved in the existing political structures. I mean, you can't even convince people to give up guns, for a start...

The designs are actually chosen via competition, they are voted on by scientists globally. The requirements for the competition mandate the elimination of poverty and inequality by giving them equal access as part of the "self sustaining" design itself. Scientists from all over the world have been voting on these designs and improving upon them for a good number of years now. The "poor" will have their poverty eliminated in the design, thus they will no longer actually be " poor". Via democracy, they will have just as much say as anyone else. My vision utilizes the fact that the poor outnumber the wealthy so can thus make democracy work in their favor if they realize how to best use the system to do so, so my first step to accomplishing this is to help teach " the masses" how to overcome the "dizinformation blitz" that is meant to keep them bickering and powerless and unite against the wealthy to do so via voting.

It's pie in the sky idealism (should have had real engineers vote on it, not scientists). It is a demonstrator for new technology, not a test of feasibility.

Via democracy, the poor currently have as much say as anyone else, right? So how come we still have all these issues?

The thing is, ultimately your future vision requires overcoming a large number of the problems we are currently fighting today, but doesn't actually provide a means of making that transition. So my question is, why bother with the greenhouse cities? Fix the problems and we don't actually need the greenhouse cities any more.

I mean, on the one hand, I am a born cynic. But on the other hand, someone needs to ask the questions - how can we do this? Do we actually need to do this? Are we even addressing the right problems through it?

1) You are basing " how they treat the wealthy vs the poor" on the "same thing they have always done", when you actually address the wealthy, which is necessary to stabilize civilization regardless to which approach we take after that, according to all the data we have on this, Wealth inequality is the first step to stabilization and stabilization is seen as impossible without addressing wealth inequality. In addition, think of it more like when two university students break their arm in Canada, both are seen in the ER and have the same wait times regardless of whether or not they came from a wealthy background or not ( The two people I know who had this happen had one broke an arm the other broke an ankle but still neither waited longer than the other). That is how the system should work once you actually address corruption.

2) You address consumption by "not letting everyone use what they want" but rather provide healthier, sustainable, recyclable, renewable alternatives. They can still create and consume, however by changing what materials are used will change how it impacts the environment. There is no need to prevent people from creating and consuming as long as it isn't harmful. It is just a matter of finding adequate replacements and methods that are not harmful to the environment.

3)"A local community project" can be implemented on a mass scale not unlike how they build playgrounds in every neighborhood. The same can happen with other useful shared resources such as this. The same can be and is done with community gardens and basketball courts, it isn't like building more of a good thing is somehow undoable.

4)

Now, I respect what Ocasio-Cortez has achieved, but there is a leap of faith between "electing more diverse individuals" to "reducing corruption"

I have never actually viewed Ocasio-Cortez as diverse, I just see her as a person like everyone else and see that as irrelevant to what I stated about her. Her POLICIES are what is important here. THIS is why "People are important" because you have to elect people who are willing to pass laws that will prevent corruption that apply to themselves. You have to elect people WILLING to remove the " different rules for different classes" BS. The first step is necessarily electing more people who share Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's willingness to remove privileges given to the wealthy by the existing laws and structures in order to change this long term. Both Bernie and Alexandria share similar stances on corruption is why I mentioned them, not because of "diversity". The ONLY way you address lobbying and campaign finance is by electing people willing to pass laws to stop it, and you do that by electing the individuals who are willing to do so.

5) Of course they have engineers in the competition, the actual competition that I participated in school was presented as "an engineering project" so although I use the term scientists and not actually list all of those involved, engineering is the application of Science and math to solve problems, and that is definitely what is being done here in these competitions. The children who are also involved in the program are those in the "gifted and talented" program here ( it has other names depending on school district/region) where children are removed from regular classes certain days of the week to participate in the program that focuses on solving the worlds problems. More on that here:
https://www.txgifted.org/what-is-gifted

When I was in this program in school, events included people ( adults, not just children) from all over the world, engineers, scientists, mathematicians, architects, NASA, ESA, JAXA, NSO and moire were always there as well. These were huge international events that included all fields, not limited to one group that worked on these things. I really think they should make these opportunities and events made available for all students, and not just the ones deemed " worthy" to do so by test results.

6) Most of the poor do not even vote in the US. Many of the poor lack access to proper nutrition, safety, education and care and are too busy focusing on survival to be able to take off work to vote or be bothered learning about what is actually causing the problems they face. This is why I see it as vital for education to address this in order to make a real difference here. Once we help mobilize and unite the poor to vote in their best interests, things WILL change. Why do you think the GOP was so terrified of the poor voting last election? There are enough poor to even screw up their excessive gerrymandering machine. The GOP have been actively trying to stop this from happening.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/georgias-secretary-of-state-expresses-concern-that-too-many-people-might-be-voting-lawfully/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-trump-gop-voter-suppression-georgia_us_5bd88ba6e4b017e5bfd694a1

The GOP loses their grip over the poor if the poor actually get out and vote, so they try to make it harder for them to do.

We are making progress on this, we just need to get it going faster and on a larger scale. Most people do not even imagine it possible to make a better world for them to live in and just accept it the way it is, we have to help them understand it is possible to do better so they can believe it themselves enough to make it happen.

EDIT: More about the future cities competitions here:
https://www.gre.ac.uk/ach/research/centres/avatar/research/fccs
http://www.discovere.org/our-programs/future-city
https://wismartcities-smartfutures.com/
https://smartcitiesntx.com/
https://news.fiu.edu/2018/02/emerging-engineers-envision-future-cities-for-senior-citizens/119097
https://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/space/article/NASA-s-Johnson-Space-Center-hosts-annual-Future-12493574.php
https://contestwatchers.com/cities-for-our-future-global-competition/
https://futurecity.org/

This has been something that has been going on for a very long time now and involved experts and youth from all over the world in hopes of solving long term problems.

Lil devils x:
2) You address consumption by "not letting everyone use what they want" but rather provide healthier, sustainable, recyclable, renewable alternatives. They can still create and consume, however by changing what materials are used will change how it impacts the environment. There is no need to prevent people from creating and consuming as long as it isn't harmful. It is just a matter of finding adequate replacements and methods that are not harmful to the environment.

That's still a massive energy drain. With the cleanest renewables in the world, you still have a massive impact on the environment from the massive infrastructure needed to give everyone this level of living. Why inflict that, when you could just cut out the unnecessary products which were only ever pushed by companies with the desire to make money prioritised over usefulness? And then you get into the wonderful quagmire of what is allowed and what isn't, which opens up abuse by those with influence to ensure that their personal vices are permitted while others are cut.

And this has all not even touched on the fact that you are going to need population controls a la China's one-child policy. Which will fly in the face of the cultural norms of a large swathe of the current population.

3)"A local community project" can be implemented on a mass scale not unlike how they build playgrounds in every neighborhood. The same can happen with other useful shared resources such as this. The same can be and is done with community gardens and basketball courts, it isn't like building more of a good thing is somehow undoable.

The scaling point was more to do with the effect on the economy. I'm incredibly sceptical of any attempt to move towards a currencyless economy, or a form of sharing which is essentially the same thing. Human history tends to show that while it works on a small scale, on a large scale it gets ruined by pricks. Or general human nature.

4) I have never actually viewed Ocasio-Cortez as diverse, I just see her as a person like everyone else and see that as irrelevant to what I stated about her. Her POLICIES are what is important here. THIS is why "People are important" because you have to elect people who are willing to pass laws that will prevent corruption that apply to themselves. You have to elect people WILLING to remove the " different rules for different classes" BS. The first step is necessarily electing more people who share Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's willingness to remove privileges given to the wealthy by the existing laws and structures in order to change this long term. Both Bernie and Alexandria share similar stances on corruption is why I mentioned them, not because of "diversity". The ONLY way you address lobbying and campaign finance is by electing people willing to pass laws to stop it, and you do that by electing the individuals who are willing to do so.

To clarify, by "diverse" I refer to her arguably working class background (although quite a number of people are trying to paint the whole election as an identity thing, tbf). But again - I doubt we'll (anywhere) ever wind up with a government completely immune to influence from large corporations. They don't need to target people like Sanders, because they can find enough people willing to listen.

5) Of course they have engineers in the competition, the actual competition that I participated in school was presented as "an engineering project" so although I use the term scientists and not actually list all of those involved, engineering is the application of Science and math to solve problems, and that is definitely what is being done here in these competitions. The children who are also involved in the program are those in the "gifted and talented" program here ( it has other names depending on school district/region) where children are removed from regular classes certain days of the week to participate in the program that focuses on solving the worlds problems. More on that here:

Snipped this down a bit.

While projects like this are great, they are more useful at bringing people into the field than for bringing about actual change. Which is great work in itself, don''t get me wrong.

And the scientist jibe was primarily an inter-disciplinary shot, not intended to be taken seriously. (How many scientists does it take to change a light bulb?)

6) Most of the poor do not even vote in the US. Many of the poor lack access to proper nutrition, safety, education and care and are too busy focusing on survival to be able to take off work to vote or be bothered learning about what is actually causing the problems they face.

Then this is the bigger problem. Don't worry about the flying cars until we can stop the regular ones from bursting into flames.

Catnip1024:

Lil devils x:
2) You address consumption by "not letting everyone use what they want" but rather provide healthier, sustainable, recyclable, renewable alternatives. They can still create and consume, however by changing what materials are used will change how it impacts the environment. There is no need to prevent people from creating and consuming as long as it isn't harmful. It is just a matter of finding adequate replacements and methods that are not harmful to the environment.

That's still a massive energy drain. With the cleanest renewables in the world, you still have a massive impact on the environment from the massive infrastructure needed to give everyone this level of living. Why inflict that, when you could just cut out the unnecessary products which were only ever pushed by companies with the desire to make money prioritised over usefulness? And then you get into the wonderful quagmire of what is allowed and what isn't, which opens up abuse by those with influence to ensure that their personal vices are permitted while others are cut.

And this has all not even touched on the fact that you are going to need population controls a la China's one-child policy. Which will fly in the face of the cultural norms of a large swathe of the current population.

I don't think you understand how well this actually works as more people start to actually utilize green energy. Take Solar, for example, when too many people start using it in an area, we have the problem of it creating TOO MUCH Energy that can be used, rather than not enough. I disagree that having people create what they need/use will be the massive energy drain you think it will be as we shift over to using more energy efficient devices at the same time.

You just suggested to cut out the unnecessary products and then invented a problem of who determines what is and is not necessary, when I disagree that is the way this should happen at all.

The people determine what products they create for personal use out of their recyclable materials, as long as they are not a danger to society I see no reason to "police" what they are allowed to create, instead you limit how much of resource they use to make things prior to recycle. I mean if you have a hoarding situation going on it would be addressed the same way they address hoarders now by considering it unsafe living conditions due to too much crap being piled up in there, but outside of that people will be able to recycle what they use to make it into something else so it matters not whether it is " frivolous Jewelry" or necessary eyeglasses they are making with it. In order to access certain resources or more of resources than normally would be used, you file for permits and such the same way we currently do for certain chemicals and such. It is not difficult to expand on the already existing systems for that part of it.

No, you will not need population controls. In fact, we have the opposite problem when you reduce poverty, people stop having enough babies rather than too many. Hell Denmark has been putting out commercials encouraging people to make babies.

https://www.businessinsider.com/do-it-for-denmark-ad-campaign-to-encourage-pregnancy-2015-10
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/23/baby-crisis-europe-brink-depopulation-disaster
https://borgenproject.org/birth-rates-decrease-as-people-rise-out-of-poverty/

Lil devils x:
I don't think you understand how well this actually works as more people start to actually utilize green energy. Take Solar, for example, when too many people start using it in an area, we have the problem of it creating TOO MUCH Energy that can be used, rather than not enough. I disagree that having people create what they need/use will be the massive energy drain you think it will be as we shift over to using more energy efficient devices at the same time.

Wrong. We have the problem of producing more than we can store at certain times and not being able to utilise it at others.

Battery storage technology is currently heavily dependent on lithium, which as well as being located in certain regions exacerbating the potential for monopolisation and conflict, is also a finite resource. With our battery technology, there is a cap on energy usage you could achieve. I'd be surprised if it would allow 7 billion people the lifestyle you envisage.

You just suggested to cut out the unnecessary products and then invented a problem of who determines what is and is not necessary, when I disagree that is the way this should happen at all.

Well, let's go back to your previous step of removing non-environmentally friendly materials. Who decides what is environmentally friendly? I mean, palm oil is a natural product, but it devastates the rainforest. Coffee similarly. Certain metals are essential for the sort of structures you are after- do you ban people using those for gimmicky stuff?

There have to be controls. Your envisaged future would be incredibly authoritarian. It has to be. Surely the current world demonstrates that you can't just trust people to be responsible?

No, you will not need population controls. In fact, we have the opposite problem when you reduce poverty, people stop having enough babies rather than too many. Hell Denmark has been putting out commercials encouraging people to make babies.

So have you eliminated religion in your future utopia, particularly the ones with prohibitions on contraceptives? That's rather draconian. Have you eliminated social systems which place high value in children? You can't pick one or two isolated examples of stable populations in the face of the world, when you are attempting to build a future world. And the wider picture is a soaring population.

Catnip1024:

And this has all not even touched on the fact that you are going to need population controls a la China's one-child policy. Which will fly in the face of the cultural norms of a large swathe of the current population.

Lil devils x:

No, you will not need population controls. In fact, we have the opposite problem when you reduce poverty, people stop having enough babies rather than too many. Hell Denmark has been putting out commercials encouraging people to make babies.

I would go even further than that, I think population controls would actively undermine progress towards the future Little Devils x is envisioning. People typically generate more value in their life than they consume, so some percentage of the population can work on things that aren't the bare necessities, things like entertainment and technology. And those things aren't consumed proportionally faster with a larger population, and presumably advance faster with more people working on them. Enacting population controls to try and reach sustainability is like cutting the heavy motor off your boat so that you don't sink before you reach the land.

Catnip1024:

Lil devils x:
I don't think you understand how well this actually works as more people start to actually utilize green energy. Take Solar, for example, when too many people start using it in an area, we have the problem of it creating TOO MUCH Energy that can be used, rather than not enough. I disagree that having people create what they need/use will be the massive energy drain you think it will be as we shift over to using more energy efficient devices at the same time.

Wrong. We have the problem of producing more than we can store at certain times and not being able to utilise it at others.

Battery storage technology is currently heavily dependent on lithium, which as well as being located in certain regions exacerbating the potential for monopolisation and conflict, is also a finite resource. With our battery technology, there is a cap on energy usage you could achieve. I'd be surprised if it would allow 7 billion people the lifestyle you envisage.

You just suggested to cut out the unnecessary products and then invented a problem of who determines what is and is not necessary, when I disagree that is the way this should happen at all.

Well, let's go back to your previous step of removing non-environmentally friendly materials. Who decides what is environmentally friendly? I mean, palm oil is a natural product, but it devastates the rainforest. Coffee similarly. Certain metals are essential for the sort of structures you are after- do you ban people using those for gimmicky stuff?

There have to be controls. Your envisaged future would be incredibly authoritarian. It has to be. Surely the current world demonstrates that you can't just trust people to be responsible?

No, you will not need population controls. In fact, we have the opposite problem when you reduce poverty, people stop having enough babies rather than too many. Hell Denmark has been putting out commercials encouraging people to make babies.

So have you eliminated religion in your future utopia, particularly the ones with prohibitions on contraceptives? That's rather draconian. Have you eliminated social systems which place high value in children? You can't pick one or two isolated examples of stable populations in the face of the world, when you are attempting to build a future world. And the wider picture is a soaring population.

You control the production, as it is far easier to police production than the end user. For example, you outlaw palm oil that affects the rain forest and ONLY allow oil that does not impact the rain forest to be used, not unlike outlawing other illegally obtained materials. They have already shown that if we really wanted to we could grow palm oil on artificial island on the ocean rather than needing to do so on actual land at all. There are sustainable means to produce Palm oil so you would not regulate consumption of it, instead you regulate production.

As for finite resources such as metals, it would be like some chemicals are distributed now. In some forms made available to the public in certain amounts and for others, you have to apply for permits and licensees to access for specific purposes. You do not limit what they can make from it, but rather the amounts distributed for different areas. If they want to exceed their limit without a permit, they have to recycle what they have in order to do so. They can always recycle materials in order to create new things rather than stockpile more of a material. It would be no more " authoritarian" than it is now.

The same people who decide what is and is not environmentally friendly now would decide. Peer reviewed science is what decides what is and is not environmentally friendly. We already restrict use of harmful pesticides and other products such as lead paint, this would be no different and we can utilize the same means we already use to do this, just make sure it is science based rather than eliminate all science potions from your governing body as Trump has done.

I know plenty of Catholics here that supposedly cannot use contraceptives but somehow only have 2 kids. Funny how that works in practice. Those who have many kids are far outnumbered by those who choose not to in modern society. We would actually have to encourage more baby making and have to offer incentives, not discourage it as people would likely end up where many nations are currently once they reduce poverty as to not having enough kids.

Not having enough children is MORE destabilizing than having too many. I don't think you are understanding why that is so devastating and it isn't one or two examples, This is many nations facing this problem now. Germany had to import a ton of immigrants in order to keep their infrastructure from failing due to lack of babies. This is a problem across many nations, not just a few currently. Immigrants helped buy some time, but expect the same to happen as the next generation comes into play. It will eventually come down to having to offer major incentives to have children and make it as easy on people to do so as possible to be able to maintain the necessary population to prevent civilization from collapsing.

tstorm823:

Catnip1024:

And this has all not even touched on the fact that you are going to need population controls a la China's one-child policy. Which will fly in the face of the cultural norms of a large swathe of the current population.

Lil devils x:

No, you will not need population controls. In fact, we have the opposite problem when you reduce poverty, people stop having enough babies rather than too many. Hell Denmark has been putting out commercials encouraging people to make babies.

I would go even further than that, I think population controls would actively undermine progress towards the future Little Devils x is envisioning. People typically generate more value in their life than they consume, so some percentage of the population can work on things that aren't the bare necessities, things like entertainment and technology. And those things aren't consumed proportionally faster with a larger population, and presumably advance faster with more people working on them. Enacting population controls to try and reach sustainability is like cutting the heavy motor off your boat so that you don't sink before you reach the land.

While " bare necessities" are not really going to be needed to be worked on by people as much as they are actually automated, however, you DO need to at least maintain population to be able to maintain productivity in advancing society, which is frequently difficult to do once you reduce poverty because it isn't like you can force everyone to have 2 kids to maintain the numbers so those who have more help make up for those who have none. In the end though, I see having to give huge incentives and basically bribing people to have children is the only way population will be maintained due to the data we have on this already.

Saelune:
Thank you for proving my entire OP true.

Oh and 'Its ok to be uncivil cause you were first' is a horrible excuse because I can claim that too. But again, my OP was about how 'civility' is BS, and I never claimed to be civil. If the other side being uncivil first makes return incivility justified, then I am justified because Republicans have been uncivil to me and LGBT people before I was even born.

Checkmate dude.

Except I clearly established that the people you lump in with everyone else aren't guilty of the things you use to "justify" your treatment of them. Which I clearly stated before. And which I clear specified when asking you if those people who had not been guilty would be JUST AS JUSTIFIED AS YOU in responding to your treatment with uncivility of their own, to test the consistency of your justification for your own behavior.

You only showcase the inconsistency I called your position out on before with you argument here.
'Its ok to be uncivil cause you were first' Is the justification you use. My problem with it is that you aren't being uncivil to people who were uncivil to you, you are painting huge groups of people with the same brush to excuse your behavior and justify it as if they were all monsters. You openly claim they all are.

You are being uncivil towards people who haven't done you any wrong, or who dared to chose their and their family's own immediate needs over your personal political goals in how they voted.

That is unjustified, and is not "being uncivil to people who are uncivil", it is being uncivil to people just because you dislike them.

Perhaps stop intentionally stripping away context and arguments when you try to address an opposing viewpoint. It makes you look like you are concocting strawmen instead and have no intention of arguing in good faith.

tstorm823:
I would go even further than that, I think population controls would actively undermine progress towards the future Little Devils x is envisioning. People typically generate more value in their life than they consume, so some percentage of the population can work on things that aren't the bare necessities, things like entertainment and technology. And those things aren't consumed proportionally faster with a larger population, and presumably advance faster with more people working on them. Enacting population controls to try and reach sustainability is like cutting the heavy motor off your boat so that you don't sink before you reach the land.

There is finite landmass. There is finite fertile land. Even by stacking some of it up, there's a limit to what can be sustainably achieved. The current rate of population growth will lead to problems at some point, especially if you envisage a western lifestyle for all, it's a matter of deciding when you act.

Lil devils x:
You control the production, as it is far easier to police production than the end user. For example, you outlaw palm oil that affects the rain forest and ONLY allow oil that does not impact the rain forest to be used, not unlike outlawing other illegally obtained materials. They have already shown that if we really wanted to we could grow palm oil on artificial island on the ocean rather than needing to do so on actual land at all. There are sustainable means to produce Palm oil so you would not regulate consumption of it, instead you regulate production.

But you have a set amount of land available, even if you artificially create some more (not even touching on the potential impact ocean farming would have on the ocean itself).

The same people who decide what is and is not environmentally friendly now would decide. Peer reviewed science is what decides what is and is not environmentally friendly. We already restrict use of harmful pesticides and other products such as lead paint, this would be no different and we can utilize the same means we already use to do this, just make sure it is science based rather than eliminate all science potions from your governing body as Trump has done.

Does it? Or does public acceptance? Because there's plenty of research into the environmental impact of meat and aviation, but nobody is planning on restricting those any time soon.

I know plenty of Catholics here that supposedly cannot use contraceptives but somehow only have 2 kids. Funny how that works in practice. Those who have many kids are far outnumbered by those who choose not to in modern society. We would actually have to encourage more baby making and have to offer incentives, not discourage it as people would likely end up where many nations are currently once they reduce poverty as to not having enough kids.

And you're looking at this through the blinkered view of living in the first world. Even in the fairly shit area of the first world I come from, I personally know people with 13 siblings. Just because not every Catholic follows the religion devoutly doesn't mean your future world is fine for all of them.

And you are rather ignorantly conflating "modern society" with "modern US society". Are you trying to say that India is not modern?

Not having enough children is MORE destabilizing than having too many. I don't think you are understanding why that is so devastating and it isn't one or two examples, This is many nations facing this problem now. Germany had to import a ton of immigrants in order to keep their infrastructure from failing due to lack of babies. This is a problem across many nations, not just a few currently. Immigrants helped buy some time, but expect the same to happen as the next generation comes into play. It will eventually come down to having to offer major incentives to have children and make it as easy on people to do so as possible to be able to maintain the necessary population to prevent civilization from collapsing.

1 - The reason Germany needs to import people is because its entire industry is based on rampant consumerism rather than actual need.

2 - The vast majority of those jobs are going to be lost to automation. At which point, all of those people become useless at best, and a burden at worst. Go back to my "kept as pets by benevolent overlords" point from earlier.

3 - The point is not economic but environmental. We live in a fixed system. There is a certain capacity that system can cope with. We can optimise that capacity, but at some point you have to accept you cannot continue to give everyone a suitable lifestyle. Surely it's better to have a lower population with a comfortable lifestyle than 20 billion people having to eat cockroaches and seaweed and living in stacked boxes?

Lil devils x:

Not having enough children is MORE destabilizing than having too many. I don't think you are understanding why that is so devastating and it isn't one or two examples, This is many nations facing this problem now. Germany had to import a ton of immigrants in order to keep their infrastructure from failing due to lack of babies. This is a problem across many nations, not just a few currently. Immigrants helped buy some time, but expect the same to happen as the next generation comes into play.

Ok, that is rubbish.

Germany does not "have to import immigrant to keep infrastructure from failing". That is a stupid myth that is somehow employed by both sides of our very own immigration debate. "Be more acceptive to refugee immigrants because we need them for the aging society" vs "See, the globalist elites want to replace us with Arabs for economical reasons"- Both are stupid and wrong. Germany has not and did not have in recent times need of unskilled labour force and certainly not for infrastructure. Yes, our economy is good which is why we do attract a lot of legal immigrants that easily get a job. But we are mostly lacking high qualified workers.
Yes, there are problems with a population with a lot of retired people and not eough at working age. And Germany does try to persuade people to have more children. But a stable or slowly decreasing population is very much managable. And is something that has to be achieved planetwide if we ever want to achieve a society that is not on the brink of collapse for economic reasons.
Luckily much of the world is not growing fast anymore. It is not only first world nations that don't have children. Every continent except Africa seems to have managable growth levels now. But Africa has a problem. Growth in many regions there is very much not sustainable at all. But everywhere else ?

1 - The reason Germany needs to import people is because its entire industry is based on rampant consumerism rather than actual need.

It kinda isn't ?

Germany has one of the highest savings rate in the first world and an absurdly export-oriented economy because we can't really get domestic demand up to what would be "normal" for our productivity. And that is mostly a cultural issue because rampamt consumerism has connotations of moral failure.

Look for trade deficits to know which countries have "rampant consumerism" going on. That is a measure about how much more a country consumes than it produces.

2 - The vast majority of those jobs are going to be lost to automation. At which point, all of those people become useless at best, and a burden at worst. Go back to my "kept as pets by benevolent overlords" point from earlier.

No. Most of those jobs are already automated. That is why we don't need low-skilled labour. We still hire some kinds o harvest workers for strawberries and asparagus but because those are basically the only plants he don't have good machines for and that will change soon. We do employ foreign lorry drivers but that is because speditions operate EU-wide anyway, so further automation would not cost any jobs here. There is some automation coming in the service sector, but that is not where you have most immigrants working because service requires the best language skills. Anywhere else ?
Automation has mostly already happened. (Which is why the million refugees are not actually welcome cheap workforce. Many are now unemployed for years)

Catnip1024:

tstorm823:
I would go even further than that, I think population controls would actively undermine progress towards the future Little Devils x is envisioning. People typically generate more value in their life than they consume, so some percentage of the population can work on things that aren't the bare necessities, things like entertainment and technology. And those things aren't consumed proportionally faster with a larger population, and presumably advance faster with more people working on them. Enacting population controls to try and reach sustainability is like cutting the heavy motor off your boat so that you don't sink before you reach the land.

There is finite landmass. There is finite fertile land. Even by stacking some of it up, there's a limit to what can be sustainably achieved. The current rate of population growth will lead to problems at some point, especially if you envisage a western lifestyle for all, it's a matter of deciding when you act.

1) you do not actually need soil to farm

https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/article/2094426/farming-without-soil-new-japanese-tech-makes-growing-fruit-and

2) you can farm anywhere utilizing technology
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-farm-uses-sun-and-seawater-to-grow-vegetables-in-the-desert

3) you can even farm on the oceans.
https://smartfloatingfarms.com/

4)Western lifestyles are what REDUCES population and why people choose to have less kids because they want to spend more time doing things they enjoy rather than looking after others.

https://www.today.com/health/i-don-t-think-me-7-reasons-why-people-choose-t102160

The Poor frequently have many children because they also have low survival rates and shorter life expectancy. When you eliminate poverty, this changes drastically, so do their lifestyles and they find more things they wish to do that does not pertain to children.

5) The world is not as populated as you seem to think it is. In 2005, the percentage of unpopulated land in the US was 81.78% . The global map shows population distrbution as well. The idea however is to have humans living on less land, not more, by building vertically.
http://science.answers.com/Q/How_much_of_US_land_mass_is_unpopulated

In addition, Some nations are actually building islands in the Ocean. Land mass isn't as much of a problem as you may think it is, however, I would like to see more land mass utilized for " wilderness" and less needed for human habitation. This is accomplished much better through building future cuties as it will not be as spread out as it currently is and will make necessities and entertainment built in within walking distance and allow most everything to be deliverable as it is in places like Singapore, though with this a feature that is built in, delivery, for the most, part will be automated.

https://www.businessinsider.com/vietnam-building-islands-in-south-china-sea-2016-5

Satinavian:

Lil devils x:

Not having enough children is MORE destabilizing than having too many. I don't think you are understanding why that is so devastating and it isn't one or two examples, This is many nations facing this problem now. Germany had to import a ton of immigrants in order to keep their infrastructure from failing due to lack of babies. This is a problem across many nations, not just a few currently. Immigrants helped buy some time, but expect the same to happen as the next generation comes into play.

Ok, that is rubbish.

Germany does not "have to import immigrant to keep infrastructure from failing". That is a stupid myth that is somehow employed by both sides of our very own immigration debate. "Be more acceptive to refugee immigrants because we need them for the aging society" vs "See, the globalist elites want to replace us with Arabs for economical reasons"- Both are stupid and wrong. Germany has not and did not have in recent times need of unskilled labour force and certainly not for infrastructure. Yes, our economy is good which is why we do attract a lot of legal immigrants that easily get a job. But we are mostly lacking high qualified workers.
Yes, there are problems with a population with a lot of retired people and not eough at working age. And Germany does try to persuade people to have more children. But a stable or slowly decreasing population is very much managable. And is something that has to be achieved planetwide if we ever want to achieve a society that is not on the brink of collapse for economic reasons.
Luckily much of the world is not growing fast anymore. It is not only first world nations that don't have children. Every continent except Africa seems to have managable growth levels now. But Africa has a problem. Growth in many regions there is very much not sustainable at all. But everywhere else ?

1 - The reason Germany needs to import people is because its entire industry is based on rampant consumerism rather than actual need.

It kinda isn't ?

Germany has one of the highest savings rate in the first world and an absurdly export-oriented economy because we can't really get domestic demand up to what would be "normal" for our productivity. And that is mostly a cultural issue because rampamt consumerism has connotations of moral failure.

Look for trade deficits to know which countries have "rampant consumerism" going on. That is a measure about how much more a country consumes than it produces.

2 - The vast majority of those jobs are going to be lost to automation. At which point, all of those people become useless at best, and a burden at worst. Go back to my "kept as pets by benevolent overlords" point from earlier.

No. Most of those jobs are already automated. That is why we don't need low-skilled labour. We still hire some kinds o harvest workers for strawberries and asparagus but because those are basically the only plants he don't have good machines for and that will change soon. We do employ foreign lorry drivers but that is because speditions operate EU-wide anyway, so further automation would not cost any jobs here. There is some automation coming in the service sector, but that is not where you have most immigrants working because service requires the best language skills. Anywhere else ?
Automation has mostly already happened. (Which is why the million refugees are not actually welcome cheap workforce. Many are now unemployed for years)

I am actually looking at it from an infrastructure maintenance issue of being able to support the structures. When you have regions abandoned in between existing structures, you lose a " support link" in the chain to be able to maintain that area. Like the issues they have had with water quality and distribution in areas where most of the people have either died off or moved away so there is not enough local support to maintain the existing utilities. You create gaps that make the overall system weaker and since you do not want to go around force relocating people every few years to adjust for population loss, you have to come up with other means to support the infrastructure in regions with declining population to support it. Although you hear about mostly about the water issues declining areas, this affects all infrastructure as it loses the population to support it. Whether it is maintain the schools and providing quality education or maintaining the structures, you need a level of population to be able to do so or it falls into disrepair and quality decreases as support for that region decreases. Eventually you wind up with ghost towns with no ability to even police them or handle building hazards. When you look at what happened in the rust belt when manufacturing moved out and entire portions of cities became evacuated, it looked like a horror movie set, but this is reality here. You basically would have to demo entire towns/ cities haul off the debris and replant the area to solve the problem, but cannot do that until there is no one left in the town at all, which seldom happens in addition to there being no one there to pay to have it done in the first place. It creates a whole series of new problems when you have a population decline. It essentially becomes hell on earth in those areas.

This is what actually happens when you have population decline:

https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/03/city_of_flint_shutdown_offthec.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2009/06/18/101510.htm

https://www.wateronline.com/doc/cities-with-declining-populations-feel-infrastructure-pressure-0001
https://mississippitoday.org/2016/04/12/infrastructure-issues-tied-to-population-loss/
https://www.isoe.de/uploads/media/hummel-water-supply-vypr-2007-en.pdf

Catnip1024:

tstorm823:
I would go even further than that, I think population controls would actively undermine progress towards the future Little Devils x is envisioning. People typically generate more value in their life than they consume, so some percentage of the population can work on things that aren't the bare necessities, things like entertainment and technology. And those things aren't consumed proportionally faster with a larger population, and presumably advance faster with more people working on them. Enacting population controls to try and reach sustainability is like cutting the heavy motor off your boat so that you don't sink before you reach the land.

There is finite landmass. There is finite fertile land. Even by stacking some of it up, there's a limit to what can be sustainably achieved. The current rate of population growth will lead to problems at some point, especially if you envisage a western lifestyle for all, it's a matter of deciding when you act.

We've barely begun to think vertically as far as maximizing use of the earth, and we're already looking into space. I have the most optimistic view of the future where human civilization grows indefinitely and it's awesome. Things like climate change are exciting in a way because it means we can effect the climate, rather than do our best with what we have while we wait for next natural mass extinction to bury our way of life. Gotta have more ambition than that.

Satinavian:
It kinda isn't ?

Germany has one of the highest savings rate in the first world and an absurdly export-oriented economy because we can't really get domestic demand up to what would be "normal" for our productivity. And that is mostly a cultural issue because rampamt consumerism has connotations of moral failure.

Look for trade deficits to know which countries have "rampant consumerism" going on. That is a measure about how much more a country consumes than it produces.

That comment wasn't actually about Germany per say, rather the current global industrial set-up in general. It ties back to my previous point on needing to cut down on production of superfluous items.

And just because the goods produced aren't consumed in Germany, doesn't mean they are not driven by rampant consumerism.

No. Most of those jobs are already automated. That is why we don't need low-skilled labour. We still hire some kinds o harvest workers for strawberries and asparagus but because those are basically the only plants he don't have good machines for and that will change soon. We do employ foreign lorry drivers but that is because speditions operate EU-wide anyway, so further automation would not cost any jobs here. There is some automation coming in the service sector, but that is not where you have most immigrants working because service requires the best language skills. Anywhere else ?
Automation has mostly already happened. (Which is why the million refugees are not actually welcome cheap workforce. Many are now unemployed for years)

Automation hasn't finished. With more advanced AI you will be cutting out more and more of the more technical jobs. Take hospital labwork, for instance. If an AI can identify microbes as well or better than humans, quicker and cheaper, who wouldn't do that?

And that'll be across the board.

Catnip1024:
And just because the goods produced aren't consumed in Germany, doesn't mean they are not driven by rampant consumerism.

The following list is the top 30 export items by value from Germany (from 2012, but can't find a new one as easily):

Cars, Vehicle parts, Pharmaceuticals, (Aircraft, helicopters, and spacecraft), Refined petroleum, Petroleum gas, Engine parts, Machinery having individual functions, Medical instruments, Human or animal blood, Computers, Trucks, Transmissions, Integrated circuits, Valves, Low-voltage protection equipment, Gold, Liquid pumps, Centrifuges, Gas turbines, Air pumps, Aircraft parts, Tractors, Electrical transformers, Electrical control boards, Industrial printers, Other plastic products, Washing and bottling machines, Excavation machinery, Combustion engines

Aside from cars, consumer goods are not exactly, what Germany produces a lot of. It is mostly tools and machines for buissness in other countries. Then some medical stuff and some refining of material. Chemicals would also be there if they were counted as single item. And the world will continue to need machinery and medicine and materials even if it moves to a more sensible model than "rampant consumerism". Every single possible project to make the world a better place will need this stuff. The more ambitious, the more of it.

Automation hasn't finished. With more advanced AI you will be cutting out more and more of the more technical jobs. Take hospital labwork, for instance. If an AI can identify microbes as well or better than humans, quicker and cheaper, who wouldn't do that?

That would be nice. Hospital staff is what is lacking in most of Europe which really hurts poor countries because those professionals come to the rich ones (EU freedom of movement). I don't see a coming unemployment crisis there.
Also German hospitals experiment with that since years (with varying success) and automate whatever they can already. But AI is nowhere near ready to actually care for patients. So no, don't see big changes coming there.

And how do you think lab workers are identifying microbes today ? There are not that many steps involved where AI replacement is a possible thing. It is not like humans are looking at those things through a microscope and guess what it is.

Automation will hit the service sector, especially retail and logistics. It might alo hit finance. But other than that, there is no change on the horizon.

Satinavian:
The following list is the top 30 export items by value from Germany (from 2012, but can't find a new one as easily)

The thing about the list is, you are taking a very narrowly defined definition of consumerism. To me, replacing cars for prestige rather than necessity is consumerism. Taking trips by air for recreation is consumerism. The vast majority of industry feeds it - the necessity for the future is to either vastly reduce this or actually make it completely environmentally friendly. I doubt the latter is truly possible if you want to provide for 6 billion people, so the former is an admirable thing to aim for.

And how do you think lab workers are identifying microbes today ? There are not that many steps involved where AI replacement is a possible thing. It is not like humans are looking at those things through a microscope and guess what it is.

See, the irony here is, there is still a huge amount of microscope work in healthcare today. Sure, some things are more computerised, and things are in place to help set up samples, etc., but at the end of the day, there is a lot of people looking down a microscope and guessing.

https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/healthcare-science/roles-healthcare-science/life-sciences/biomedical-science

You would learn to work with computers, sophisticated automated equipment, microscopes and other hi-tech laboratory equipment and you would use a wide range of complex modern techniques in your day-to-day work.

Human error is one of the major potential sources of fuck-ups in healthcare. If you could sort out your AI, not only would you save money but you would save lives.

Catnip1024:
snip

Satinavian:
snip

Are you sure you're both talking about the same thing? Because I'm just confused...

Catnip1024:

Satinavian:
The following list is the top 30 export items by value from Germany (from 2012, but can't find a new one as easily)

The thing about the list is, you are taking a very narrowly defined definition of consumerism. To me, replacing cars for prestige rather than necessity is consumerism. Taking trips by air for recreation is consumerism. The vast majority of industry feeds it - the necessity for the future is to either vastly reduce this or actually make it completely environmentally friendly. I doubt the latter is truly possible if you want to provide for 6 billion people, so the former is an admirable thing to aim for.

If you define consumerism basically as any industrial activity, yes, Germany providing tools for industry would be hurt, if all industry would be reduced. But as long as you want to replace stuff with more modern, more environmentally friendly solutions, that will simply not be the case.

See, the irony here is, there is still a huge amount of microscope work in healthcare today. Sure, some things are more computerised, and things are in place to help set up samples, etc., but at the end of the day, there is a lot of people looking down a microscope and guessing.

We were talking about identifying microbes. There are a lot of uses of microscopes, but there are elsewhere. You can't visually distinguish one strain from another.

Human error is one of the major potential sources of fuck-ups in healthcare. If you could sort out your AI, not only would you save money but you would save lives.

Germany is actually very active in medical AI developments for diagnosis and treatment recommodations. But so far the results are underwhelming, way below expectations.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/playing-doctor-with-watson-medical-applications-expose-current-limits-of-ai-a-1221543.html

It's impressive that this thread went on for so long.

Marik2:
It's impressive that this thread went on for so long.

I make good points.

Civil Disobedience can go a long way if used correctly.

Marik2:
Civil Disobedience can go a long way if used correctly.

Absolutely.

But one has to remember the whole "civil" part of that when trying it.

Though, I suppose it depends on the intent of the protesting in the first place. The choice between civil disobedience or outright revolution can be based entirely on one question:
"Do you want to work with the people you oppose?"

If you do, choose a method that makes them to see the consequences of their opposition without instigating conflict and harm. You want to work with these people and enlighten them to make things better, so disobeying the immoral laws without being immoral yourself eventually sways public opinion and guides change toward the endgoal. If you want to work with these people after it is all said and done, then not creating bloodfeuds or entrenched divides is important. Also helps changes last and transfer down between generations better.

If you do not, then picking the violent path and forcing them to change to your will only makes sense. If you don't care about them, don't want to work with them, or just want them exterminated, then promote the uncivility, the radical, the extremist, and the violent. If your endgoal has no desire to work with the people you currently oppose, then crushing them under boot makes sense. After all, if you don't plan to work with them, their continued existence as they are is only a hindrance to your plans. Violent revolutions fit this bill.

Now me, I prefer the route that doesn't involve violence and bloodshed because at the end of the day, I know I have to work with other people, even those I dislike, to make the world better overall.

Saelune:
I make good points.

You do? Would you care to share them then? Oh, and actually support them too. I have been asking you to do so for a while now, but perhaps it will work better just asking directly without all the excess dissecting of your terrible justifications and calling out of your intentional misrepresentation.

This topic is about to become very relevant again tonight.

Saelune:
This topic is about to become very relevant again tonight.

What exactly is tonight?

Leg End:

Saelune:
This topic is about to become very relevant again tonight.

What exactly is tonight?

I'm going to have a guess and say Shutdown 2.0. I'd predict Trump blaming the Dems and then asking why they don't work together with him.

Leg End:

Saelune:
This topic is about to become very relevant again tonight.

What exactly is tonight?

trunkage:

Leg End:

Saelune:
This topic is about to become very relevant again tonight.

What exactly is tonight?

I'm going to have a guess and say Shutdown 2.0. I'd predict Trump blaming the Dems and then asking why they don't work together with him.

It can be good to check the dates of posts sometimes.

I was referring to Trump's State of the Union.

Saelune:
It can be good to check the dates of posts sometimes.

...Huh. Thought it said 14th. Mixing my threads up again.

I was referring to Trump's State of the Union.

Oooh. Yeah, was fun.

trunkage:
I'm going to have a guess and say Shutdown 2.0. I'd predict Trump blaming the Dems and then asking why they don't work together with him.

If he keeps it shut down til 2020, he's got my support.

Leg End:
If he keeps it shut down til 2020, he's got my support.

I really hope you're just saying that to spite lefties and not because you actually think its a good idea. I mean, Id rather you admit its a bad idea, but still. Its a bad idea, and Trump is doing it for horrible reasons.

Saelune:
I really hope you're just saying that to spite lefties and not because you actually think its a good idea.

I must disappoint.

I mean, Id rather you admit its a bad idea, but still. Its a bad idea, and Trump is doing it for horrible reasons.

I'd rather the Dems just throw in the towel. Get funding to secure our border and have some decent supply and staff at border facilities(the latter you surely agree with), then we work on overhauling our immigration system.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here