- 22 Aug 2020 07:25
#15114840
In the 1970s we were warned by a series of books and reports.
We didn't listen. Well, most of you didn't, but me and some others changed our lives.
BTW --- "we" here means humanity as a whole with a few million exceptions out of the pop. of billions.
and BTW --- I think that CO2 releases can be included in "pollution", although I don't remember the report saying that.
The Club of Rome Report outlined 5 things that were increasing or increasing exponentially. They were: population, pollution, food per capita, industria production per capita, and resources being used (aka resources remaining).
. . . They said that if even one was allowed to grow exponentially, by 2050 +/- 20 years the sh!t wold hit the fan. It didn't matter which one, any of them would lead to disaster.
. . . We of course let them all grow, although population growth has slowed. There rest have grown pretty much exponentially. Therefore, we can expect disaster sooner instead of later.
We are right on (or close to) the curves the report predicted for the "business as usual" projection.
I think you expect me to talk about energy use and ind. production. This is not my main point here.
My point here is ---
We have refused to even talk about population growth. Al least, in a serious way toward DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Way back then I proposed that the whole world do something very drastic.
Of coursed, I was shunned by the few who I told about my plan.
Well, now my plan is not drastic enough. We would need a ridiculously drastic plan.
A ridiculously drastic plan has a zero % chance of being adopted.
The problem is there are too many wealthy people in the world. Here wealthy means the top 10% of earners world wide. This makes almost everyone in the developed nations 'wealthy'.
So what we need is something as drastic as a one child limit per woman (or more drastic). We saw what this did in China. It created a generation of people with no brothers or sisters. This created a 2nd generation that has no cousins, aunts, or uncles. The result is people who have no extended family to fall back on. This is not a good way to organize your society.
I don't need to tell you that some religions would avoid the system at any cost. There are at least 3 I know of that would not submit to this.
Going forward, we really will need the more ridiculously drastic plan.
In the 70s my plan was a 1 child per adult system. People who would have no children would get a large sum of money and a retirement pension so that someone else could have anther 1 child. This was to be world wide. Someone like the UN would make the payments.
A more drastic plan would be 1 child per woman. However, how can we mitigate the damage that this does to families over time?
Also, 1 child per woman means a falling population. If a nation brings in immigrants to replace the lost population growth, then you have 2 choices. a] Let them become wealthy and have 1/2 child each, or b] make them 2nd class citizens, who can't have children and wealth.
. . . I suppose there may be a lot of people in poor nations who would rather live as 2nd class citizens of a developed nation than die where they are. But is this ethical?
A ridiculously drastic plan would be less than 1 child per woman. How in the world can this be done ethically? And how can this shrinking and aging population be supported by the tiny working age group? I have no answers I'm willing to share, because they all would be attacked as unethical, and even evil.
Those who deny ACC will be a problem will not grok any of why this is *necessary*.
Denial solves all problems. At least until they become acute and the denier may be dead by then. So, the denier never knows or faces the mess he/she made.
.
We didn't listen. Well, most of you didn't, but me and some others changed our lives.
BTW --- "we" here means humanity as a whole with a few million exceptions out of the pop. of billions.
and BTW --- I think that CO2 releases can be included in "pollution", although I don't remember the report saying that.
The Club of Rome Report outlined 5 things that were increasing or increasing exponentially. They were: population, pollution, food per capita, industria production per capita, and resources being used (aka resources remaining).
. . . They said that if even one was allowed to grow exponentially, by 2050 +/- 20 years the sh!t wold hit the fan. It didn't matter which one, any of them would lead to disaster.
. . . We of course let them all grow, although population growth has slowed. There rest have grown pretty much exponentially. Therefore, we can expect disaster sooner instead of later.
We are right on (or close to) the curves the report predicted for the "business as usual" projection.
I think you expect me to talk about energy use and ind. production. This is not my main point here.
My point here is ---
We have refused to even talk about population growth. Al least, in a serious way toward DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Way back then I proposed that the whole world do something very drastic.
Of coursed, I was shunned by the few who I told about my plan.
Well, now my plan is not drastic enough. We would need a ridiculously drastic plan.
A ridiculously drastic plan has a zero % chance of being adopted.
The problem is there are too many wealthy people in the world. Here wealthy means the top 10% of earners world wide. This makes almost everyone in the developed nations 'wealthy'.
So what we need is something as drastic as a one child limit per woman (or more drastic). We saw what this did in China. It created a generation of people with no brothers or sisters. This created a 2nd generation that has no cousins, aunts, or uncles. The result is people who have no extended family to fall back on. This is not a good way to organize your society.
I don't need to tell you that some religions would avoid the system at any cost. There are at least 3 I know of that would not submit to this.
Going forward, we really will need the more ridiculously drastic plan.
In the 70s my plan was a 1 child per adult system. People who would have no children would get a large sum of money and a retirement pension so that someone else could have anther 1 child. This was to be world wide. Someone like the UN would make the payments.
A more drastic plan would be 1 child per woman. However, how can we mitigate the damage that this does to families over time?
Also, 1 child per woman means a falling population. If a nation brings in immigrants to replace the lost population growth, then you have 2 choices. a] Let them become wealthy and have 1/2 child each, or b] make them 2nd class citizens, who can't have children and wealth.
. . . I suppose there may be a lot of people in poor nations who would rather live as 2nd class citizens of a developed nation than die where they are. But is this ethical?
A ridiculously drastic plan would be less than 1 child per woman. How in the world can this be done ethically? And how can this shrinking and aging population be supported by the tiny working age group? I have no answers I'm willing to share, because they all would be attacked as unethical, and even evil.
Those who deny ACC will be a problem will not grok any of why this is *necessary*.
Denial solves all problems. At least until they become acute and the denier may be dead by then. So, the denier never knows or faces the mess he/she made.
.
Last edited by Steve_American on 22 Aug 2020 08:02, edited 1 time in total.
- By QatzelOk
- By FiveofSwords
- By JohnRawls