[QatzelOk]

soundtrack

Our generation has a choice to make.(1.)

But Our Hands are being "forced" in order to empower some hypothetical "future" that hasn't even been born yet. A non-entity.

We are being asked to give up many pleasures in the present (like consuming oil, land, entertainment products) in order to ensure that some future "humans" may also live out their lives. Things like corporate average fuel economy rules, climate change pacts, mountain-top removal rules, fracking regulations, etc. - all of them hamper Our Generation's capacity to live our lives to the max, like other animals are free to do. Why are we being forced to settle for less than other animals?

Why is Our Generation allowing itself to suffer economic hardship and extra labor - because that's what all these climate rules and land management regulations really mean - in order to facilitate something that "we ourselves" completely control and are currently giving birth to? That might not even exist if we decide that it won't?

Shouldn't Our Generation have the choice to live out our lives to the max without feeling any responsibility for future generations that haven't even been born yet? Shouldn't the living take strong precedence over the un-living-as-of-yet?

Why is our freedom being limited for people that don't even exist? Phantoms.



(1.)Diana Ross: A Biography

[Chad]

soundtrack

Our generation has a choice to make.(1.)

But Our Hands are being "forced" in order to empower some hypothetical "future" that hasn't even been born yet. A non-entity.

We are being asked to give up many pleasures in the present (like consuming oil, land, entertainment products) in order to ensure that some future "humans" may also live out their lives. Things like corporate average fuel economy rules, climate change pacts, mountain-top removal rules, fracking regulations, etc. - all of them hamper Our Generation's capacity to live our lives to the max, like other animals are free to do. Why are we being forced to settle for less than other animals?

Why is Our Generation allowing itself to suffer economic hardship and extra labor - because that's what all these climate rules and land management regulations really mean - in order to facilitate something that "we ourselves" completely control and are currently giving birth to? That might not even exist if we decide that it won't?

Shouldn't Our Generation have the choice to live out our lives to the max without feeling any responsibility for future generations that haven't even been born yet? Shouldn't the living take strong precedence over the un-living-as-of-yet?

Why is our freedom being limited for people that don't even exist? Phantoms.



(1.)Diana Ross: A Biography

Kinda like abortion without the 9 month or less extinction time. I do not understand why any taxpaying, legal, law abiding citizen would elect anyone to tell them not to use and benefit from all natural resources available. The US is kin to opec. America is a Nation of Coal. Many buy an expensive electric vehicle to go green. The electricity charging the car comes mainly from coal or natural gas. The Us has a 100 years or more left in the ground at the current rate of consumption. No shortage of fossil fuels. No shortage of individuals that create stumbling blocks for the common man. The rich and devious desire total control of everyone. In America the corrupt career criminal politicians sell out and limit the tax payer's freedom and prosperity. Just like the Biden's and others that line their pockets with Gold. God Bless America during President Trump's second term. May Peace and Prosperity Rule the Earth for Generations to come.

[Sivad]

retarded fake doomer dilemmas are fake and retarded.

[Sivad]

Who Won the Bet of the Century?

In 1980 economist Julian Simon bet biologist Paul Ehrlich that the price of five commodity metals would decrease over the next 10 years. Today on the program Pierre Desrochers of the University of Toronto Mississauga joins us to explain how the bet came about, who won, and what was really at stake. Along the way we learn about depletionism versus resourceship, how lack of imagination leads people toward hysteria and failed predictions, and why the human brain is the greatest resource of all.

[QatzelOk]

I do not understand why any taxpaying, legal, law abiding citizen would elect anyone to tell them not to use and benefit from all natural resources available.

In our consumer minds, "limiting consumption" makes no sense. We hear, both consciously and un-consciously, messages from commercial sources that tell us that consumption is heaven.

And as we consume and consume and consume, the diameter of our mouths is the only thing that limits our consumption.

The fake "needs" recommended by artificial "experts" from commercial sources... can never be satisfied. This is part of the design of consumerism. Products that you desire can never satisfy you, so you buy more....

But to continue operating on this model, we have to make "our decision": to abort or not abort the future.

Kinda like abortion without the 9 month or less extinction time.

I am using the same marketing techniques as abortion-promoters use. But in actual fact, abortion could actually "help" slow down the abortion of the future (by eliminating surplus population).

On the other hand, one possible problem with single-baby-abortion is the precedent it sets: If it's alright to kill a future baby to save a living person's future (in our system the way it is now), then it's also okay to abort the future (in our system, the way it is now).

Precedent is dangerous in ways that poor methodology often fails to consider.

retarded fake doomer dilemmas are fake and retarded.

Anything that gets in the way of "a generation's right to choose" is going to get flack under our system, the way it is now.

[ckaihatsu]

surplus population

This term is *problematic* because what is it 'surplus' in relation *to*?

You're implying some kind of *ideal* population size, when, in fact, the number is mostly *arbitrary* -- if the population grows, then so will efforts and resources to provide *food*, etc., for that increase in people.

You're on the brink of being a Malthusian.

[Chad]

The only surplus population in America are the ones that can work but are unwilling to do so. The arrogant Leftist dream of cancel culture not only silences babies at an alarming rate, but it has now assigned a status of necessary to certain workers and jobs. All taxpaying jobs are necessary. Most Government elected positions are not necessary. For any politician to shut down any job under the pretext that it is unneeded is disgusting. The sanctuary cities that use tax payer dollars to provide for druggy losers and illegals is a horrible problem in America. The Leftist Democrats are destroying America's cities. Every taxpayer is needed for America to remain a world power. All Leftist Politicians that have destroyed family businesses during the covid crisis should be removed from office as non essential workers, and get tarred and feathered by any and all taxpayers that were directly affected by the poor decisions made by said politicians. A Government that has as many resources as America can help all of it's citizens that are unable to help themselves. The lazy, do not deserve anything. The violent criminals do not deserve anything but isolation, sadness and pain. The future can be bright for a civilization that shines a light on it's negatives. The only rewards should go to those law abiding, legal, citizens, that attempt to help themselves and others up the ladder of success. The stumbling blocks in America, that have been laid by the Leftist Democrats, to destroy the middle class, must be removed and destroyed. So much will be accomplished in President Trump's second term. Jehovah Shalom

[ckaihatsu]

The only surplus population in America are the ones that can work but are unwilling to do so.

You're referring to *politicians*, right? (grin)

The arrogant Leftist dream of cancel culture not only silences babies at an alarming rate,

(As though the reason for abortion is that fetuses are just *too loud* in the womb.) (high-five with someone offstage)

but it has now assigned a status of necessary to certain workers and jobs. All taxpaying jobs are necessary. Most Government elected positions are not necessary. For any politician to shut down any job under the pretext that it is unneeded is disgusting.

Well, what's the *criteria* being used to shut down jobs? Is it a lack of *profitability*, per worker?

The sanctuary cities that use tax payer dollars to provide for druggy losers and illegals is a horrible problem in America.

No human being is illegal.




Time to End the War on Drugs



https://swhelper.org/2015/12/02/time-to ... -on-drugs/


---

The Leftist Democrats are destroying America's cities. Every taxpayer is needed for America to remain a world power.

Itching for World War III on the basis of Great Power status. Or, let's *not*.

All Leftist Politicians that have destroyed family businesses during the covid crisis should be removed from office as non essential workers, and get tarred and feathered by any and all taxpayers that were directly affected by the poor decisions made by said politicians.

You don't *have* to scapegoat the Democrats for the coronavirus.

A Government that has as many resources as America can help all of it's citizens that are unable to help themselves. The lazy, do not deserve anything.

Politicians again -- I *know*.

The violent criminals do not deserve anything but isolation, sadness and pain.

The imperialist neocons and Democrats who destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. War criminals, all.

The future can be bright for a civilization that shines a light on it's negatives. The only rewards should go to those law abiding, legal, citizens, that attempt to help themselves and others up the ladder of success. The stumbling blocks in America, that have been laid by the Leftist Democrats, to destroy the middle class, must be removed and destroyed. So much will be accomplished in President Trump's second term. Jehovah Shalom

This is the typical, pervasive practice of blaming-the-victim. Are you going to give this same message and advice to the people and families of Iraq?

Estimated deaths:

Lancet survey** (March 2003 – July 2006): 654,965 (95% CI: 392,979–942,636)[47][48]
Iraq Family Health Survey*** (March 2003 – July 2006): 151,000 (95% CI: 104,000–223,000)[49]
Opinion Research Business**: (March 2003 – August 2007): 1,033,000 (95% CI: 946,258–1,120,000)[50]
Iraq Family Health Survey*** (March 2003 – July 2006): 151,000 (95% CI: 104,000–223,000)[51]
PLOS Medicine Study**: (March 2003 – June 2011): 405,000 (95% CI: 48,000–751,000)
Documented deaths from violence:
Iraq Body Count (2003 – 14 December 2011): 103,160–113,728 civilian deaths recorded[52] and 12,438 new deaths added from the Iraq War Logs[53]
Associated Press (March 2003 – April 2009): 110,600[54]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

[Chad]

You're referring to *politicians*, right? (grin)





(As though the reason for abortion is that fetuses are just *too loud* in the womb.) (high-five with someone offstage)





Well, what's the *criteria* being used to shut down jobs? Is it a lack of *profitability*, per worker?





No human being is illegal.




Time to End the War on Drugs



https://swhelper.org/2015/12/02/time-to ... -on-drugs/


---





Itching for World War III on the basis of Great Power status. Or, let's *not*.





You don't *have* to scapegoat the Democrats for the coronavirus.





Politicians again -- I *know*.





The imperialist neocons and Democrats who destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. War criminals, all.





This is the typical, pervasive practice of blaming-the-victim. Are you going to give this same message and advice to the people and families of Iraq?

Peace is attainable by all that are willing to compromise. Compromising means concession. Mutual concessions, if attainable, if realistic, can lead to benefits for all involved. If one is forced to accept standards that are lower than is desirable, there in lies the rub. You cannot dictate morality. When two people or more are involved in any decision making process, the outcome may be difficult for either side. Buyer's remorse can lead to all kinds of turmoil. America, if given the correct leadership, not only will bring Capitalism and Democracy to fruition on the Planet, but it will eliminate communism. America bought Alaska in the late 1800's from Russia. America should have bought Mexico, Absorbed it's culture and resources, and kept the Panama Canal. China would like to buy up all of it's potential economic threats and remain Communist forever. Time will tell if America's leaders will do what is best for America's taxpaying legal citizens. The election is 2016 was allowed by the wonderful saving grace of Almighty God. The taxpaying, legal American citizens are paying attention to the lying, lazy, corrupt career criminal politicians in both parties. The Red Wave is going to crash on the heads of the Leftist Democrats as the current Sea of Conservative (Red) voters, along with the support of the Black and the Hispanic voters that see the rioting and looting as a power grab by the Leftist Democrats that fiddle while Rome is Burning. This is a bad Century to be a Leftist Democrat. AOC and the squad are a horrible reminder as to what happens when good American's fail to turn out and vote at every election.

[QatzelOk]

This term is *problematic* because what is it 'surplus' in relation *to*?

You're implying some kind of *ideal* population size, when, in fact, the number is mostly *arbitrary* -- if the population grows, then so will efforts and resources to provide *food*, etc., for that increase in people.

You're on the brink of being a Malthusian.

You are, of course, correct.

I was using this "abortion could help preserve the future" only to demonstrate that abortion of a baby, and abortion of the future, are NOT the same thing, and might even be opposed to one another in the example of using abortion to limit population overshoot, if this was done in the hopes of preserving resources for future generations. This, by the way, is NOT a stand I would take, and that I wouldn't is exactly because abortion for "preserving the future" is infinitely problematic as it is a strategy that seeks to gain in the present by controlling the future. The domestication of the future is very similar to killing it.

Also, letting our population get to 8 billion might demonstrate how little we really care about any future. We want it all NOW, including all LIFE. ==="I wanna live to 100, and be surrounded by humans who worship the same things as me. With unlimited numbers of slaves to work for me."===

[Chad]

With unlimited numbers of slaves to work for me."===

Sound like what the Leftist Democrats want. Very Sick indeed. Kinda like Brazil before the riots. So many bad decisions by those that desire socialism without realizing the cost of free, free. Nothing is Free....Freedom costs many lives. America will never be a Socialist Nation. God Bless America. Corn Pop says that Uncle Joe's legs are not quite as hairy as Kamala's.

[MistyTiger]

By surplus population, I took it to mean that too many people are draining the world's natural resources. In the future, there will be very little left to go around. Overfishing and extinction of species has been a problem for years. What do future generations do when earth's resources are exhausted?

I might live to that day. The thought alarms me.

[QatzelOk]

America will never be a Socialist Nation. God Bless America. Corn Pop says that Uncle Joe's legs are not quite as hairy as Kamala's.

America isn't a nation. It's a state.

God doesn't bless "states," that's Ceasar's job.

And I'm not sure you even understand the theme of this thread. It's about whether humans should be "free" to destroy the future. Is this a freedom that humans should have, yes or no.

Zero to do with who is running for the role of Ronald McDumpster fire in the pandem-election.

[MistyTiger]

By surplus population, I took it to mean that too many people are draining the world's natural resources. In the future, there will be very little left to go around. Overfishing and extinction of species has been a problem for years. What do future generations do when earth's resources are exhausted?

I might live to that day. The thought alarms me.

[Finfinder]

America isn't a nation. It's a state.

God doesn't bless "states," that's Ceasar's job.

And I'm not sure you even understand the theme of this thread. It's about whether humans should be "free" to destroy the future. Is this a freedom that humans should have, yes or no.

Zero to do with who is running for the role of Ronald McDumpster fire in the pandem-election.

Yes humans should free to destroy the future. What is the alternative?

Globalization with no culture ?

[ckaihatsu]

Peace is attainable by all that are willing to compromise.

Sorry, Chad, but we're not living in the Cold War any more, with nuclear brinksmanship hanging over our heads -- these days the prevailing popular political opinion has more traction than ever (the 'second superpower'), and while the anti-*imperialist*-war public position happens to be prevailing, which is good, I don't think that 'peace', exactly, is what's called-for.

Let me put it *this* way -- here's a current article, for illustration:


'You are no longer my mother': How the election is dividing American families

https://news.yahoo.com/no-longer-mother ... 05675.html


In other words, there are *many* domestic political issues piling-up, not least of which is the killer-cops thing, in particular. While the conventional establishment response has been to just *ignore* such death tolls for the sake of the bourgeois status-quo, the 'second superpower' is now turning its attentions to the 'home' situation, and, with recent breathtaking technological advances, there are fewer excuses that the elites have to *prevent* such technologies from actually benefitting regular people, to alleviate many social ills of unmet need.

Compromising means concession. Mutual concessions, if attainable, if realistic, can lead to benefits for all involved. If one is forced to accept standards that are lower than is desirable, there in lies the rub. You cannot dictate morality. When two people or more are involved in any decision making process, the outcome may be difficult for either side.

Right -- this latter part is more to-the-point, I would say -- how can there be a 'decision-making process' to address the *class divide* ('income inequality') that threatens to tear the social fabric, and the whole *civilization* / society, apart?

Buyer's remorse can lead to all kinds of turmoil. America, if given the correct leadership, not only will bring Capitalism and Democracy to fruition on the Planet, but it will eliminate communism. America bought Alaska in the late 1800's from Russia. America should have bought Mexico, Absorbed it's culture and resources, and kept the Panama Canal.

You're only making arguments for *empire* here, which consistently *pisses off* the people of the countries that it invades. U.S. exceptionalism has to *end*, not continue.

China would like to buy up all of it's potential economic threats and remain Communist forever. Time will tell if America's leaders will do what is best for America's taxpaying legal citizens. The election is 2016 was allowed by the wonderful saving grace of Almighty God. The taxpaying, legal American citizens are paying attention to the lying, lazy, corrupt career criminal politicians in both parties. The Red Wave is going to crash on the heads of the Leftist Democrats as the current Sea of Conservative (Red) voters, along with the support of the Black and the Hispanic voters that see the rioting and looting as a power grab by the Leftist Democrats that fiddle while Rome is Burning. This is a bad Century to be a Leftist Democrat. AOC and the squad are a horrible reminder as to what happens when good American's fail to turn out and vote at every election.

You're not able to say anything *positive* about Trump's four years, so opponent-bashing isn't a full politics, and this isn't a sporting event. I appreciate the anti-Republi-crat sentiment, though.

I would nominally support AOC's Green New Deal, though, since it's at least *anti-austerity*.

You are, of course, correct.

I was using this "abortion could help preserve the future" only to demonstrate that abortion of a baby, and abortion of the future, are NOT the same thing, and might even be opposed to one another in the example of using abortion to limit population overshoot,

You're still just begging the question, though -- what's 'surplus population', exactly, and what's 'population overshoot' -- ?

Your entire position here hinges on those definitions, and you're beginning to sound like a statist social engineer, meaning *authoritarian* over the woman's personal choice of abortion.

if this was done in the hopes of preserving resources for future generations.

This is a vacuous argument, because of this:

if the population grows, then so will efforts and resources to provide *food*, etc., for that increase in people.

---

This, by the way, is NOT a stand I would take, and that I wouldn't is exactly because abortion for "preserving the future" is infinitely problematic as it is a strategy that seeks to gain in the present by controlling the future. The domestication of the future is very similar to killing it.

Well, you're starting to sound *anxious* for no good reason -- there's nothing wrong with *planning*, whether at the individual level, or by society as whole, through some kind of politics.

Also, letting our population get to 8 billion might demonstrate how little we really care about any future.

What's wrong with a population of 8 billion? You're trying to politicize an empirical, emergent biological dynamic for the sake of making political hay, it looks like.

We want it all NOW, including all LIFE. ==="I wanna live to 100, and be surrounded by humans who worship the same things as me. With unlimited numbers of slaves to work for me."===

We're living in an excellent era of human history in which we can fuel the civilization we live in with *machine* power, so that *no one* has to be consigned to slavery. We're even cutting against *wage slavery* to a large degree, and hopefully wage slavery can soon be abolished as well -- a truly *classless* society.

The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralising. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends. And when scientific men are no longer called upon to go down to a depressing East End and distribute bad cocoa and worse blankets to starving people, they will have delightful leisure in which to devise wonderful and marvellous things for their own joy and the joy of everyone else. There will be great storages of force for every city, and for every house if required, and this force man will convert into heat, light, or motion, according to his needs. Is this Utopian? A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/

[ness31]

retarded fake doomer dilemmas are fake and retarded.

I was going to say dramatic, but yours works too.

[Chad]

America isn't a nation. It's a state.

God doesn't bless "states," that's Caesar's job.

And I'm not sure you even understand the theme of this thread. It's about whether humans should be "free" to destroy the future. Is this a freedom that humans should have, yes or no.

Zero to do with who is running for the role of Ronald McDumpster fire in the pandem-election.

Humans should not be free to negatively impact other humans, but yet it occurs. No one knows the future. If we did we would not have to worry as much about the details of how or if it is going to end. America is a Nation to me. President Trump is really good for America compared to a senile old career criminal politician like Sleepy Joe. This election cycle in America much is at stake. Humans should not get to destroy anything other than the possessions that they own.(By following the current laws about destroying your own stuff) there may be some fines and fees, possibly jail time. Some believe they own their children and their animals. Some people destroy their health. No one knows when they will die. If we did we would worry more about the details of how it is going to end and if we could do something about it. Most People do not believe that as a race(Humans) can destroy the Earth. Sure we can alter the big floating Blue Spaceship Earth for a short Period of time. To Destroy the Earth is a feat beyond the ability of Man or Woman. We can destroy ourselves, if that is what is desired. Most desire to live the best life possible. To have the the ability to have what you want, when you want it. The ability to help others get what they want. The ability to eliminate the ability of those that would steal and destroy what someone else owns is almost impossible. To eliminate the ability of others to make life more difficult for anyone else is really an impossible goal unless you negatively impact a certain group that are willing to negatively impact another group. The circle of Life is ever expanding. The simple life is not simple anymore. You do You is the best motto. Caesar's job ended many moons ago. All Blessing flow from Almighty God. May God continue to Bless America during President Trump's second term.

[QatzelOk]

Yes humans should free to destroy the future. What is the alternative?

Globalization with no culture ?

No.

The alternative to "the freedom to destroy the future" is what most religions should be aimed at: ensuring that any given generation of humans CAN'T destroy the future.

In fact, preserving the planet for future generations... might be THE REASON to have an official religion.

And that the richest, most resource-consuming people on earth right now don't seem to care or to be able to do anything to stop mass destruction of our life systems... seems to reduce the value of most current human religions to approximately ZERO.

Religions - and that includes the Modern worship of technologies - that let their "believers" destroy the earth, are worth nothing. Dust in the wind.

[Chad]

No.

The alternative to "the freedom to destroy the future" is what most religions should be aimed at: ensuring that any given generation of humans CAN'T destroy the future.

In fact, preserving the planet for future generations... might be THE REASON to have an official religion.

And that the richest, most resource-consuming people on earth right now don't seem to care or to be able to do anything to stop mass destruction of our life systems... seems to reduce the value of most current human religions to approximately ZERO.

Religions - and that includes the Modern worship of technologies - that let their "believers" destroy the earth, are worth nothing. Dust in the wind.

Who knows what the future holds. Each new generation of Human is challenged by the time that they live in. The current needs and intellect of said time will regulate what is actually needed and or attainable during said time. To impose restrictions of any kind, on anyone, is up to who? So once a society has imposed rules and regulations upon the people that it is trying to control how does one maintain the fairness of the system for the newcomers as well as those that are long in the tooth. Political leaders that stymie capitalism are horrible. Rules and regulations that save the majority are wise to the majority that support them. Rioting and looting in America has been allowed by the leftist Democrats. This cannot be tolerated any more. Why would you pay taxes to live somewhere that a complete loser, that does not cough up a dime in revenue, gets to destroy your town. Most of the losers live rent free in a tent with old needles and a tax payer provided portable potty. The losers still prefer to use old Walmart bags. Those that help the losers increase in population by over taxing and regulating the working class, that has not surrendered to a political system of corrupt career criminals hell bent on destroying the middle class, need to be dragged out of bed in the middle of the night. The corrupt should be tarred and feathered. The bodies should be hung in cages on the outskirts of town for examples of what happens to those that would create stumbling blocks that hinder the lives of law abiding, tax paying, legal American Citizens. It is going to be a Bright Winter in America as President Trump is re elected in a landslide. It is going to be a Bright Future for the Planet if America is allowed to remain a Capitalist Republic for another 200 years. You do You when it comes to Religion.