This problem has more implications than it seems. Ye, on one hand we multiplied excessively, but on the other hand if you STOP now and go way below 2.11 children per woman, all over the world, the young generation of today is fucked. There will be too many old people in 40-50 years and not enough young people to sustain the economy, unless you say bye bye to your pension and work.
But... END human rights?? DUDE, sick! You're way out of your mind, there is no way I will ever support that idea.
@calmreason Here's something to consider, your idea, apart from being on par with Hitler's nazism, is inapplicable in practice. All developed countries have a constitution that strongly defend human rights and most people would NOT want to let go of these rights. We ourselves enforce these rights, whether Christian or atheist, because we want to live in a safe world. (Human rights are a secular and recent concept by the way, Christianity didn't invent it.)
@calmreason Here's something else to consider. The resources have not YET been depleted and you probably won't notice a thing until you're very old. If you're already old, you'll be DEAD by the time resources get depleted. Scientists are working to find alternate, viable resources.
Now personally I'm 23 I'd rather have a good youth in the modern world and struggle at 60, then start struggling NOW and living in constant fear because nobody guarantees my right to even live.
@SoVvM Both your points are valid. I'm not an extremist in practice, but I made this video to highlight how living beyond your means is a mistake for a family as much as it is for a population.
I live in the UK - here Human Rights often get in the way of efficiently dealing with terrorists, even to the degree of giving the guilty a new identity and state benefit for the rest of their lives. Yes - even those found guilty.
My point is that common sense should rule over 'rights' which we made up.
@calmreason Human rights are not exactly absolute. I mean, USA (developed country) still uses execution for the most vile of murderers. The whole jail system itself is a violation of basic freedom. But it's just.
And I don't think I'd object if someone killed a terrorist (or dictator or war criminal) without a trial either. Really, I would cheer the death of such a scumbag. The problem is, what measures will you set in place so innocent people aren't mistaken for terrorists?
Living conditions have continually improved and will continue to as long as energy is not constrained. Peak coal is due in about a year. Fusion is key. Give people money, richer people have less children.
@The1stArtist Even this is going to be asking a bit much. I predict a time when a human will require a ticket for a seat on the planet. It will have a time limit (like Logan's Run) and when cost has exceeded usefulness for too long, the ticket will be revoked. I also think that by default, a citizenship that by today's standards we'd call slavery will be required.
No need to think in such oppressive paradigms. Everything could be set on the right track by the proper following of 2 basic principles: property rights and the non-aggression principle. This could pave the way for a truly free society where trailer trash will think twice before engaging in "Go forth and multiply" actions, knowing full well they don't have the backing of social security by default.
Only then, I strongly believe, could the population of Terra be sustainable.
@The1stArtist In the UK politicians have had to resign for even stating that philosophy. Many uneducated females use childbirth and sequential polygamy as a career path - I'm not kidding! Of course each of their children do the same. Google "Howard Flight, Tory Peer"
Of course that when you encourage irresponsibility (through bailouts, being on the dole, looking to politics to resolve world problems) irresponsible people will thrive and be rewarded, while productive and successful people are penalized for their usefulness in society.
This is why society(or civilization) is crumbling all around us.
Oh, please don't equate the political system with society, civilization or humanity.
@calmreason Ticket for a seat on the planet? LOL. I wonder who is stupid enough to get killed without a bloody fight.
You realize what problems this would cause? Every "citizen" marked for death would turn into a criminal, capable of killing policemen. You think people are just going to stand quietly and wait for the day of their death. They'd probably run in the woods and stock up on ammo.
The universal declaration of human rights are more of a goal to strive for than something anyone would need to have faith in. Obviously, there are all sorts of conditions where we should abandon their universality temporarily, like you mention, but the general principles there are a solid foundation for human civilization and well worth trying to enforce, and in a resource crisis - make sure the side that wins supports them in principle.
That's a brave video
paulchartley 7 months ago
This problem has more implications than it seems. Ye, on one hand we multiplied excessively, but on the other hand if you STOP now and go way below 2.11 children per woman, all over the world, the young generation of today is fucked. There will be too many old people in 40-50 years and not enough young people to sustain the economy, unless you say bye bye to your pension and work.
But... END human rights?? DUDE, sick! You're way out of your mind, there is no way I will ever support that idea.
SoVvM 8 months ago
@SoVvM The Human Rights as a whole are in conflict with a finite world.
There is no god.
There are no "god given rights".
All rights are therefore allocated from a dimishimg resource.
Therefore there are flexible, so not "rights".
So call them "privileges".
calmreason 8 months ago 2
@calmreason Here's something to consider, your idea, apart from being on par with Hitler's nazism, is inapplicable in practice. All developed countries have a constitution that strongly defend human rights and most people would NOT want to let go of these rights. We ourselves enforce these rights, whether Christian or atheist, because we want to live in a safe world. (Human rights are a secular and recent concept by the way, Christianity didn't invent it.)
SoVvM 8 months ago
@calmreason Here's something else to consider. The resources have not YET been depleted and you probably won't notice a thing until you're very old. If you're already old, you'll be DEAD by the time resources get depleted. Scientists are working to find alternate, viable resources.
Now personally I'm 23 I'd rather have a good youth in the modern world and struggle at 60, then start struggling NOW and living in constant fear because nobody guarantees my right to even live.
SoVvM 8 months ago
@SoVvM Both your points are valid. I'm not an extremist in practice, but I made this video to highlight how living beyond your means is a mistake for a family as much as it is for a population.
I live in the UK - here Human Rights often get in the way of efficiently dealing with terrorists, even to the degree of giving the guilty a new identity and state benefit for the rest of their lives. Yes - even those found guilty.
My point is that common sense should rule over 'rights' which we made up.
calmreason 8 months ago
@calmreason Human rights are not exactly absolute. I mean, USA (developed country) still uses execution for the most vile of murderers. The whole jail system itself is a violation of basic freedom. But it's just.
And I don't think I'd object if someone killed a terrorist (or dictator or war criminal) without a trial either. Really, I would cheer the death of such a scumbag. The problem is, what measures will you set in place so innocent people aren't mistaken for terrorists?
SoVvM 8 months ago
Living conditions have continually improved and will continue to as long as energy is not constrained. Peak coal is due in about a year. Fusion is key. Give people money, richer people have less children.
nilbud 8 months ago
Universal Human Rights (my view):
1. You have the right to LIFE.→ No one can decide unilaterally to kill another human being.
2. You have the right to LIBERTY.→ No one can subject another human being to slavery, stated or implied.
3. You have the right to PROPERTY.→ No one can decide unilaterally to deprive another human being of his justly acquired property.
That's it. Nothing less, and for sure nothing more.
The1stArtist 8 months ago
@The1stArtist Even this is going to be asking a bit much. I predict a time when a human will require a ticket for a seat on the planet. It will have a time limit (like Logan's Run) and when cost has exceeded usefulness for too long, the ticket will be revoked. I also think that by default, a citizenship that by today's standards we'd call slavery will be required.
calmreason 8 months ago
@calmreason
No need to think in such oppressive paradigms. Everything could be set on the right track by the proper following of 2 basic principles: property rights and the non-aggression principle. This could pave the way for a truly free society where trailer trash will think twice before engaging in "Go forth and multiply" actions, knowing full well they don't have the backing of social security by default.
Only then, I strongly believe, could the population of Terra be sustainable.
The1stArtist 8 months ago
@The1stArtist In the UK politicians have had to resign for even stating that philosophy. Many uneducated females use childbirth and sequential polygamy as a career path - I'm not kidding! Of course each of their children do the same. Google "Howard Flight, Tory Peer"
calmreason 8 months ago
@calmreason
Of course that when you encourage irresponsibility (through bailouts, being on the dole, looking to politics to resolve world problems) irresponsible people will thrive and be rewarded, while productive and successful people are penalized for their usefulness in society.
This is why society(or civilization) is crumbling all around us.
Oh, please don't equate the political system with society, civilization or humanity.
The1stArtist 8 months ago
@calmreason Ticket for a seat on the planet? LOL. I wonder who is stupid enough to get killed without a bloody fight.
You realize what problems this would cause? Every "citizen" marked for death would turn into a criminal, capable of killing policemen. You think people are just going to stand quietly and wait for the day of their death. They'd probably run in the woods and stock up on ammo.
SoVvM 8 months ago
The universal declaration of human rights are more of a goal to strive for than something anyone would need to have faith in. Obviously, there are all sorts of conditions where we should abandon their universality temporarily, like you mention, but the general principles there are a solid foundation for human civilization and well worth trying to enforce, and in a resource crisis - make sure the side that wins supports them in principle.
Gnomefro 8 months ago