posted on November 14, 2021 12:39 PM by
u/Subrosian_Smithy
56
u/1an0ther53 pointsat 1636896547.000000
You, a bailey-dwelling š simpleton: self-determination and rights
for women are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps the failure of Western
intervention in this regard shows change must come from within
Me, a motte-occupying š° genius: huh wow Afghans are animals
So the whole post is a nuclearly bad take overall but they did seem to be saying that change was possible but would need to come from withiin
>"Could they have changed? Absolutely. But the change would have needed to come from within, and we didn't, or couldn't, inspire that."
Yeah there's lines that definitely imply the motte as well ("they continued to be Afghans") and you could very realistically read the reasonable part as a deflection, though I'm honestly not what they actually believe and what's either concession or edginess depending
Trying to enforce your views on others with different values almost
always leads to one of two outcomes: rebellion or genocide.
Whatnow. I dont want to hear their opinions on hate speech laws
then.
(And I think their opinions on why the other Afghans didnt fight back
against the Taliban has some flaws, iirc the Afghan troops not being
paid enough to get food being one small example. In other words, āow you
think the US went to Afghanistan to enforce views? You sweet summer
childā).
and must restrict their population growth to match available
resources through some form of contraception.
Listen here: Iām a rationalist. That means I have sophisticated
well-thought out views on everything. Yes, I believe in human rights.
But we must also take great care in maintaining genetic purity. Because
how else will the master race stay in majority?
/s These people are on some heavy dumb-dumb-juice. They like to use
bigly words and reference economics and public policy while never having
read a single book on the topic. āAh, but you see, I read it in a blog
post!ā We live in a post-scarcity world, the birth rate for most first
world countries (including the US) is below the replacement rate. If we
want to maintain a stable population we need to be having MORE babies or
more immigrants. Whoever thinks contraception is necessary as population
control is science illiterate. The āscarce-resourceā claim is a farce to
prop up a trash ideology.
> We live in a post-scarcity world, the birth rate for most first world countries (including the US) is below the replacement rate. If we want to maintain a stable population we need to be having MORE babies or more immigrants. Whoever thinks contraception is necessary as population control is science illiterate. The āscarce-resourceā claim is a farce to prop up a trash ideology.
What's your opinion on 'the environment' and 'global warming'?
Not having children *does*, all else being equal, actually decrease greenhouse gas generation (by decreasing total energy use and consumption) and allow for greater carbon sequestration (by reducing use of agricultural land), though. The effect on other environmental indicators goes along the same lines--shrinking human population means (all else being equal) less human impact, and the expansion of non-human lifeforms into areas where humans used to exclude them from.
That's absolutely true, I just don't think *making there be less people* is a very practical, effective, or even ethical way of approaching the problem.
Thatāsā¦not what post-scarce means. Hereās the Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy
And to answer any curious audience: at some point, given a sufficiently powerful economic output; fixing climate change will become a post-scarce problem. If it costs half of your yearly economy to fix climate change; then thatās what we call scarcity āa limitation of resources.ā If it costs a single penny out of every dollar every year to fix climate change, then climate change is a post-scarcity problem āitās so cheap to fix itās basically freeā.
>Post-scarcity is a theoretical economic situation in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely.
What was the incentive to fix climate change if food and shelter and water are still easily available for humans?
Youā¦Have read the most comprehensive report on climate change and consequences right? IPCC AR6: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
You should read that. But to give you and onlooking readers a tl;dr: the greatest fear of climate consequences are the things we donāt know and canāt predict. We donāt know exactly how severe climate change will be, what the runaway effects are, and what possible consequences there are from these changes. It is āthe dumbest experiment humanity has ever runā
You're making a more certain claim than me by insisting that, whatever the consequences of severe climate change are, they won't affect the economic conditions being post-scarce.
Thatās not a claim I ever made; thatās a claim you made. All I ever said is certain resources are post-scarce (like food and housing), climate change will one day become a post-scarce resource problem, and the greatest fear from climate change rises out of uncertainties.
Obviously. Thatās why the solution to climate change is encouraging new technologies, promoting renewable and nuclear energy, carbon sequestration, and global cooperation. Not archaic totalitarian birth control practices.
The solution to climate change threatening, say, food supplies would be promoting nuclear energy and 'global cooperation' (as if that hasn't gone nowhere for the last 50 years!), and not looking into ways to shore up local food production and storage in the event of a crisis?
> (as if that hasn't gone nowhere for the last 50 years!)
Yes, because it is against the best interest of large profit-focused corporations. Source:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
Climate change is a global crises. We cannot predict what will happen. Behaving like preppers will not solve the problem. Prepping does not solve a problem; it is buying time for blissful ignorance.
**[Merchants of Doubt](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt)**
>Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming is a 2010 non-fiction book by American historians of science Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. It identifies parallels between the global warming controversy and earlier controversies over tobacco smoking, acid rain, DDT, and the hole in the ozone layer. Oreskes and Conway write that in each case "keeping the controversy alive" by spreading doubt and confusion after a scientific consensus had been reached was the basic strategy of those opposing action.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
>Yes, because it is against the best interest of large profit-focused corporations.
You know there was also a whole generation that lived through the oil crisis on the 70s, right?
>Climate change is a global crises. We cannot predict what will happen. Behaving like preppers will not solve the problem.
Which problem? Certainly, it won't stop the climate from warming. But actually having resources on hand in the event of a disaster is far more of a concrete answer than mitigation strategies that have a long history of doing nothing.
Voters who recall what life without fossil fuels was like are just as much of an obstacle to large scale climate policies as 'large profit seeking corporations' are. It's not like Exxon was running the show before then.
I don't think that's true, actually? 'Humans consume a lot of resources and this has a negative impact on the environment' is not the same as 'humans consume a lot of resources and this means that there aren't enough to go around'
There aren't many people who would believe both claims, that damage to the environment would not significantly affect an abundance of resources, because if it wouldn't, there would be no urgency towards fixing the problems with the environment.
I feel as though a lot of the reason people care about climate change is not resource loss specifically, but the destruction to human life and habitats caused by extreme weather, rising sea levels, etc.
I just don't see what your point is. Bad things are happening to the environment, therefore the world can't be post-scarcity?
> I feel as though a lot of the reason people care about climate change is not resource loss specifically, but the destruction to human life and habitats caused by extreme weather, rising sea levels, etc.
These things were supposed to threaten basic necessities like crop growth and home availability. But now you don't seem to think they will?
According to whom? Global warming has been a threat for many reasons, not simply ācrop growth and home availabilityā Top among them it will displace and or kill hundreds of thousands in poor sea level communities and cause a diaspora of climate refugees. It will also cost billions in the developed world due to extreme weather events.
No, it doesnāt. At least not to the system as a whole. It implies massively destructive events to some communities. āPost-scarcityā as an economic term also doesnt mean ānothing is scarceā
Post scarcity refers to basic necessities like food, water, and shelter being plentiful and easily available. The scenario of hundreds of thousands of people dying and forming a diaspora suggests these would not be plentiful and easily available.
Are you suggesting that the climate change scenario you are concerned about will only affect less than a million people, so it won't be that big of a deal?
Are you purposefully misreading what I wrote? These arenāt āmyā concerns. Or at least not those promulgated principally by me. And for the record, I was referring to multiple communities of hundreds of thousands, which again leads me to believe you struggle with numbers. The idea that the acute effects of gw suffered by coastal communities or poorer communities somehow will be a reflection of global economic workings is an astounding claim, regardless of if that economy is post scarce or not. Itās just preposterous.
Here is a claim.
If: global warming is a massive worldwide threat, then: it therefore would pose a large risk to the production and distribution of the current abundance of basic necessities that leads to what we describe as 'post-scarcity' economics. Therefore, concern over global warming should also lead to concern over necessities.
Of course the race realist here is rhetorical fencing. Nothing useful could have come from this conversation, just look at their post history. Weird rw cryptoracist stuff.
E: here is some minor proof (somebody was complaining I didn't gave some about somebody else earlier) [blm is worried over nothing](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/kn01kh/the_cops_who_murdered_tamir_rice_have_gotten_away/ghhy0ym/?context=3), and also [a heinous plot and powergrab (somewhere else this person talked about how communist russia was started by western highly educated invaders, but you will have to find that yourself)](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/qp8df4/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_november_08/hkeixv0/). There is [biological basis for race](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/p2c9uv/remembering_the_great_scientific_crusader_who/h8j42jm/?context=3). Sorry [im going to stop now, the neighbours dog keeps barking](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/koiy28/almost_impossible_as_education_divide_deepens/ghrivpo/)
Thanks man I always get baited into some little pissing contest with these pissants. I donāt even really have a horse in the race on the topics. Shoulda looked sooner and I woulda known.
You, a bailey-dwelling š simpleton: self-determination and rights for women are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps the failure of Western intervention in this regard shows change must come from within
Me, a motte-occupying š° genius: huh wow Afghans are animals
Whatnow. I dont want to hear their opinions on hate speech laws then.
(And I think their opinions on why the other Afghans didnt fight back against the Taliban has some flaws, iirc the Afghan troops not being paid enough to get food being one small example. In other words, āow you think the US went to Afghanistan to enforce views? You sweet summer childā).
Listen here: Iām a rationalist. That means I have sophisticated well-thought out views on everything. Yes, I believe in human rights. But we must also take great care in maintaining genetic purity. Because how else will the master race stay in majority?
/s These people are on some heavy dumb-dumb-juice. They like to use bigly words and reference economics and public policy while never having read a single book on the topic. āAh, but you see, I read it in a blog post!ā We live in a post-scarcity world, the birth rate for most first world countries (including the US) is below the replacement rate. If we want to maintain a stable population we need to be having MORE babies or more immigrants. Whoever thinks contraception is necessary as population control is science illiterate. The āscarce-resourceā claim is a farce to prop up a trash ideology.