So where’s the overpopulation?
Billionaires.
Millionaires.
Bankers and Traders.
Hollywood & Social Media bullsheit rotting potentially good brains.
Self-serving narcissistic profiteers.
Stupid people who hate learning about the physical reality we exist within.
3 Likes
And fookin’ trillionaires with footprints each bigger than whole countries.
3 Likes
Your ecological footprint is very large compared to the Mexican slum dweller is the point if you insist on framing this problem as one of overpopulation
1 Like
I think this point has been responded to a number of times. There is good evidence and history about civilizations being stronger if there is less wealth disparity. That needs to be applied on a world scale, but there is no indication that will happen or how it could happen.
But even if that unlikely action was taken, it wouldn’t address the limits of the ecosystem. We are using resources created millions of years ago for fuel and supplements for the most basic needs, like growing food. Show me how that can work.
That’s a dodge.
“but there is no indication that will happen or how it could happen.”
Not under capitalism and it’s corporations first political parties in power
“ But even if that unlikely action was taken, it wouldn’t address the limits of the ecosystem.”
Why? With renewables, and a revolution change in the social order, the means of production and distribution and moving away from capitalism perpetual exponential growth to steady state growth.
1 Like
Renewables still use copper and chemicals in the manufacturing, and lots more. If I hear you, you are talking about contuined growth if we stop doing the capitalist “exponential growth” thing. Please explain
@triplex69, you see that “the community” is flagging your posts right? If you don’t respond in some way to this, I’m going to assume you are not an actual person, possibly a bot, or a group of people who are purposely disrupting this forum. I’m not going to judge your posts as an admin, but I will respond as a member. As an admin, you are violating the rules by not engaging in the conversation. You don’t answer questions. You repeat your talking points. You often post links with only minimal thoughts that come from you.
Now, as a fellow member; you said earlier that we could change to a steady growth economy, but this link is about a steady state. You’ve said before the Club of Rome listed the limits of growth. I think that Club has some problems, but we’ve all agreed there are limits to growth. So, the data you keep using does not support your argument about over-population being a myth.
You like being controversial and adversarial, which is fine to a point. I like having a variety of points of view on this forum. But you are crossing over into being contradictory, for contradiction’s sake.
It’s seems that linking an RT article triggers a spam alert. Who made that decision?
My post above still can’t be seen. By the community. Will you fix this?
I can’t forward this conversation when you say things like
-
the data you keep using does not support your argument about over-population being a myth.
-
But you are crossing over into being contradictory,
-
I think the club of Rome has some problems
-
you don’t answer questions
-without provided an example, explanation or presenting a counter argument
I referred you Herman Dalys body of work with a link to his talk on globalisation - a key pillar of neo liberial economics to drive exponential growth.
On this page it states “ Daly’s book Steady-State Economics is still iconic for those who see the advantages of small scale production, decentralisation, increased durability of products, and increased long-run efficiency in the the use of scarce resources.”
Would you care to comment on this after you have looked at his work?
I made a point of the medias role in stunting climate action and highlighted media attitude towards discussing growth and acknowledging the catastrophic consequences of AGW that scientist are warning us about. You can see this in the monbiot clip - what don’t look up is based on.
Would you care to comment on this as well?
Yes, and he talks about “steady state”, which you misquoted as “steady growth”.
You wouldn’t know about AGW of it weren’t for media. Unless you only read science papers. You would hear more from NPR, but Meet The Press did a Sunday on it and mainstream media refers to it regularly. I agree they should do more, but these broad statements you make don’t mean much.
1 Like
Did they discuss why citizens feel the need to take direct climate action ?
Steady state in economic growth. Read his work
I logged out, so I could see it like you would. It’s covered, but there’s a button that anyone can click and read your article if they want. I think that’s perfect. It’s saying, “warning, this person posts questionable links and likes to contradict”.
Our auto filter flagged 41 posts for me to review. I cleared some, but left the really bad ones. It’s more about your pattern of behaviour. I let a lot of things go, but if someone consistently disrupts, I take action.
Usually, it gets to this point, where they don’t understand what they are doing wrong. They claim I don’t show them, no matter how specific I get.
You read it.
Do you know what burden of proof is?
Do you have a counter argument?
No. Because I agree with the things in the articles, the limits of nitrogen, the Happiness index, stable economies instead of constant growth and much more.
It’s you that I disagree with. You have no argument. You tried to be a contrarion but weren’t ready for people who knew what they were talking about. I tried to show where we are in agreement, but that doesn’t seem to be something you like
1 Like
Inequality is easily fixed by taxation. But the trees can only vote for the axe. It’s a genetic quirk.
I’m not proposing that Mexican slum dwellers increase their fossil resource consumption to our level. But that they be given their due. Commons of electricity and water from the commons of the land, and commons of the land itself of course.
2 Likes
That’s not a BBC face.
Depends on how you spend it. And there can’t be places in the world where rich people can hide their money.
Broad based land tax. You can’t hide land to overseas mr moderator
1 Like
You spend it on the commons. Only on the commons.