What are your unpopular opinions? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Blown2CV said:
Skodillac said:
Blown2CV said:
Skodillac said:
A500leroy said:
We really need less humans.
Bonus point if anyone can tell me what the point of humans keep breeding actually is and achieves.
If any form of life can even be said to have a purpose, it is surely only to participate in the Universe's drive to consume all its energy on its journey towards its own extinction.Bonus point if anyone can tell me what the point of humans keep breeding actually is and achieves.
Might as well just enjoy the ride.
Happy Thursday.
Sheesh.
I'm saying that humans and life in general have no purpose, other than perhaps to assist in the Universe's inevitable march towards its heat death. That was all, by way of an answer to Leroy's question. If that can be said to be a purpose, which is one for Philosophy wrestle with.
Happy Thursday.
Landlubber said:
otolith said:
Life is a temporary change in entropy riding on the flux of energy like a ship tacking upwind. Enjoy it while you're here.
More jibing than tacking.
Personally I think the more humans the better - ok they use more resources, but more people also leads to more innovation and better ways to use those resources - and generally makes life better for everyone except misanthropes.
I mean if you look at extreme poverty on a global scale, it has continued to go down even as the population was exploding:
Plus, the "less humans the better" idea was based on the work of Paul Ehrlich, who has been proven so hilariously wrong it's amazing people still give any credence to the idea.
However I guess silly ideas will always persist.
I mean some people still think socialism is a good idea, so work to do I suspect.
I mean if you look at extreme poverty on a global scale, it has continued to go down even as the population was exploding:
Plus, the "less humans the better" idea was based on the work of Paul Ehrlich, who has been proven so hilariously wrong it's amazing people still give any credence to the idea.
However I guess silly ideas will always persist.
I mean some people still think socialism is a good idea, so work to do I suspect.
bodhi said:
Personally I think the more humans the better - ok they use more resources, but more people also leads to more innovation and better ways to use those resources - and generally makes life better for everyone except misanthropes.
Yeah, so long as you accept things like "there are now too many humans for them to be allowed to drive ICEs or eat meat".otolith said:
bodhi said:
Personally I think the more humans the better - ok they use more resources, but more people also leads to more innovation and better ways to use those resources - and generally makes life better for everyone except misanthropes.
Yeah, so long as you accept things like "there are now too many humans for them to be allowed to drive ICEs or eat meat".bodhi said:
otolith said:
bodhi said:
Personally I think the more humans the better - ok they use more resources, but more people also leads to more innovation and better ways to use those resources - and generally makes life better for everyone except misanthropes.
Yeah, so long as you accept things like "there are now too many humans for them to be allowed to drive ICEs or eat meat".otolith said:
bodhi said:
otolith said:
bodhi said:
Personally I think the more humans the better - ok they use more resources, but more people also leads to more innovation and better ways to use those resources - and generally makes life better for everyone except misanthropes.
Yeah, so long as you accept things like "there are now too many humans for them to be allowed to drive ICEs or eat meat".Only issues I see with FF use are the fact they are finite and their effect on local air quality. I find the other computer model based issue deeply unconvincing.
Mass proliferation of nuclear power would solve a lot of issues however.
johnsmith222 said:
DodgyGeezer said:
I couldn't imagine episode 1 without jar jar, and I loved him when the film came out (I was the target age I think though). Can't believe anyone thought it was ok to bully Jake Lloyd either. Awful.
bodhi said:
otolith said:
bodhi said:
otolith said:
bodhi said:
Personally I think the more humans the better - ok they use more resources, but more people also leads to more innovation and better ways to use those resources - and generally makes life better for everyone except misanthropes.
Yeah, so long as you accept things like "there are now too many humans for them to be allowed to drive ICEs or eat meat".Only issues I see with FF use are the fact they are finite and their effect on local air quality. I find the other computer model based issue deeply unconvincing.
Mass proliferation of nuclear power would solve a lot of issues however.
otolith said:
Let me rephrase it - do you dispute that the quantity of carbon dioxide emitted from ICEs is a problem, or do you dispute that the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from ICEs is directly related to the number of human beings driving round in ICEs?
I'd certainly dispute the first one. It's less than 25% of man made CO2 and much of that is buses and trucks so even on worst case scenarios it isn't going to end the world.Austin Prefect said:
otolith said:
Let me rephrase it - do you dispute that the quantity of carbon dioxide emitted from ICEs is a problem, or do you dispute that the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from ICEs is directly related to the number of human beings driving round in ICEs?
I'd certainly dispute the first one. It's less than 25% of man made CO2 and much of that is buses and trucks so even on worst case scenarios it isn't going to end the world.The climate change issue and the extent to which individuals are going to have to change their ways is entirely related to the number of people who are emitting.
It's all well and good to say that Malthusian predictions of starvation didn't come to pass because, weren't we clever, we figured out how to turn air and fossil fuel into ammonia (and CO2) and thus boosted our ability to grow crops - but the chickens are now coming home to roost on the idea that we can indefinitely increase our population merely by extracting more coal, oil, and gas and the effects on ecosystems of us artificially fixing more and more nitrogen and digging more and more phosphate out of the ground are becoming plain.
Hopefully we can pivot to generating ever more energy from renewables - point is, as originally made, the reason we will increasingly be unable to have nice things like V8s is because there are so many of us.
It does rather look like the family who defied the warning that they could not afford 5 kids and were actually fine because of an unexpected inheritance from granny have concluded that this proves that they can support infinite children - despite granny's cash now starting to run out.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff