Recent posts by Beegum on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: AdVenture Capitalist / Micro-management - First Weekend Dev Response

Originally posted by JesusMacLean:
Originally posted by HyperHippoGames:

Just so our loyal Capitalists know – the goal of Micromanagement is NOT to undermine AdCap’s Idle nature. It’s to add a small dimension to the game that players can "push’ the game to go a little faster when they’re actively playing. This action will have a different impact on different points of the game, but it should always be worthwhile and not a chore.

But that’s exactly what it does, and exactly what it is. It’s far too potent which makes you feel like if you’re not doing it actively you are gimping yourself, which both undermines the idle nature and makes it a chore.

I doubt most people would see it that way. I mean, I might grind a little bit to get to an upgrade and a little while for whatever entertainment value it holds, but it isn’t going to stop me from closing the screen and reloading it later, lol. I think it does what they set out to do. I suppose if one was really competitive about their idle games they might feel like they didn’t have enough time and money to dedicate to multipliers and micromanagement, but someone can buy better multipliers, lol. just..lol…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The only way to save our species is to dramatically reduce our population

Originally posted by ImplosionOfDoom:

True, but thankfully the 1st world nations (who are using the most resources per capita) are having a population decline. Which is probably for the best considering unemployment and a general lack of demand for unskilled labor in post-industrial economies. The main issue with that making sure it’s going a speed we can handle economically and creation of policies to deal with the effects of downsizing (particularly in regards to urban sprawl and vacant buildings, etc.) The decline doesn’t have to be a bad thing in and of itself, but it can be if we ignore it or mismanage it.

However, this isn’t to say that population growth still isn’t a problem. At best decline in 1st world nations might result in less demand for imports, and hopefully less hasty industrialization (remember a lot of the problems the US had when it industrialized was the result of it happening so quickly and unexpectedly it took a while for us to adjust our policies and laws to cope with the social and economic changes) Granted other expanding countries like China are likely to increase their demands for imports, so chances are the amount of demand for increase won’t decrease, the clientele will just change.

Still, none of this completely solves the problem of demand for finite resources, limited arable land or consuming resources faster than they are produced. Ultimately this end of the problem requires methods of making the messy process of industrialization a bit more clean cut. (Mostly in mitigating it’s various ill effects, making the resulting population boom less dramatic, and finding easier ways to transition between economy types) Because ultimately every country wants to industrialize and be an economic big-shot (and inevitably they’ll become post-industrial and start outsourcing their labor or buying lots of imports, thus starting the process of industrialization in a new country)

People are needed to grow an economy. That’s why economists say that China won’t ever catch the US, they’ve squashed their population, and it’s greying too fast, and the US internal fertility rate isn’t that bad, and we are very generous with legal immigration, even now, and would like to be more so if we could decide what to do with illegal immigrants. This is significant in the analysis because fertility rates are dropping precipitously even in developing countries. It seems unlikely in the foreseeable future that they’ll advance with any type of full scale action through the stages of economic development as you’ve laid them out here. It’s been suggested that the precipitous drop in birthrates is actually a strategic defensive act by the US government. And, indeed, we see super low birth rates in China (which can be adversarial) and Japan (no longer any type of enemy) and across the Islamic world… In any case, it’s a shrewd strategic victory. Now, there is still promise in sub Saharan Africa and South America, but, also, there, birth rates are accelerating downward. People look at how high they are and get thrown off, the next derivative, the change in birth rates is brisk and downward across the globe except where it has bottomed out. The US has proved fairly resistant as far as developed countries go, I’m guessing due to it’s religiosity. Again, I’m not really concerned about the amount of farm land, or, ‘finite resources’ for that matter, in any relevant term. Possibly I am concerned about water. We have enough land, plenty to endure the population crest, and the finite resources are largely recyclable and the real obstacle isn’t whether they exist in sufficient quantities but how much they cost to refine. As population pressure subsides and economic growth slows those things become far less pressing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The only way to save our species is to dramatically reduce our population

Originally posted by ImplosionOfDoom:

What you need to understand is that religion as a system of law was originally intended to bring some semblance of order to ‘power vacuum’ type situations where nobody had any means of establishing authority or enforcing it, therefore the ‘threat of enforcement’ was all they had to establish power. However when a country bases an entire system of governance and law based on ‘because god said so’ it tends to lead to pretty horrific results, such as the modern Taliban, the Spanish inquisition, the church stalling scientific advancement so no one will question their authority (see "the life-long imprisonment of Galileo), state sponsored human sacrifice (see the Aztecs), and if the religion splits off into factions, the dominant faction will attempt genocide (see the various wars that occurred in Europe around the time of the reformation, you’ve basically got Catholics and various flavors of protestants all killing each other). Even though a theocracy seems so high and mighty, remember it’s still run by individual humans, who despite all the preaching are as power hungry and corruptible as anyone else, and remember that religion is a powerful tool to manipulate the masses. If you don’t separate church and state, it’s only a matter of time before a leader decides to misuse the power of religion to commit some sort of atrocity.


By the way we’ve already hit 7 billion on the population counter, and only 1st world ‘post-industrial’ countries are seeing a population decline and in most cases it’s modest at best. Many of them are have dropped down to the healthy “replacement rate” of reproduction where they’re producing enough kids to replace themselves and no more. Remember most countries fall into either the 2nd or 3rd world categories and a lot of countries are starting to industrialize (which tends to cause a population boom) there’s also more countries that will probably start industrializing soon (probably when china gets to the point of outsourcing labor) in addition it’s worth noting that we’re exhausting the world of many of it’s finite resources and farmable space, which will probably lower the rate of what’s considered ‘sustainable population growth" (for example a lot of our fertilizers have petrol chemicals in them, without these fertilizers boosting food production we can’t possibly sustain as many people. ) The goal here is to avoid hitting the ‘ceiling’ of the earth’s carrying capacity (limit on maximum population that can be sustained on the given amount of space/ resources) and avoiding Malthusian collapse of the global population.

We’re many times over the Malthusian limit. I’m not sure what you’re saying about church and state relationships. The US government started with a division of church and state, but it wasn’t militantly anti-religion. In fact, a division of church and state to some extent is generally a feature of the Christian religion, also, one could say of Hinduism and Budhism, though sometimes with a godlike emperor feature… In any case we’ve generally had a division of church of and state. What I’m talking about is a purposed government enforced and even planned press to get religion out of the public dialog. And, religion isn’t really just one thing, although it is partly how you’ve defined it there and has been a good tool for that.

The US is below replacement and many countries have declining populations, I’m certain that what you’re saying here is a factual error, although you may have meant to say ‘below replacement’ rather than ‘to… replacement’. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, lol.

We throw away a third of our food. We define arable land in a way that makes it seem like we’re running out of it, lol, in order to drive liberals to action, I think, and most starvation is linked to acute events, especially warlords stealing grain and reserve grain (used to plant the next seasons crop) in war torn areas who also take grain from missionaries and prevent people from being helped. There’s plenty of food, we turn it into fuel to put in our vehicles and it’s still cheap and plentiful.

When we talk about consumption problem and their connections with population the clearest people with consumption problems are blaming population, I suppose one could call that ironic. The population problem is essentially drunk people accusing sober people of drinking too much.

The Malthusian theory has constantly been used by rich people as reason to oppress and kill poor people. I don’t want to be part of that sad heritage.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by Beegum:

No, I was referring to the scale of primary control and responsibility.

WHAT?
Then this probably isn’t right.

You’re going to have to be a little more descriptive in what you’re attempting to point out. Because, it looks like you’re point out, by your own figures that the federal government is paying in about 7% into public education. I’m not sure this makes the point you’re trying to make. Much of these subsidies prop up large urban fail schools that pay massive political contributions.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

No, I was referring to the scale of primary control and responsibility.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bombing Of Gaza

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

The rhetoric is antisemitic, the facts on the ground are not. The mufti of Jerusalem is the one and only example of direct nazi influence in the area. Hamas is supplied primarily by Iran who is power-playing Israel. Ahmadinejad has been replaced. I know of very few mujahideen in the OT because they are mostly sunni and hamas is shi’a. Zionists have killed plenty of civilians with increasingly indiscriminate means – like artillery fire. Also, read that link in my last post. Finally the 2005 unilateral withdrawal was not a peace deal, and there were several problems with Oslo and Camp David, the major one being lack of guaranteed borders. That still doesn’t make them nazis.

but SURE! I’m the one glossing over history! I’m the one smearing an entire cultural region with a label that is unarguably shallow and one-sided!

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

The Islamofascist argument [which usually begins with the mufti of Jerusalem and then skips like 50 years of pan-Arabism] is just as much anti-semitism as labelling the Israelis Nazis.

Wait, what’s anti semitic about suggesting a cultural transfer from Euro Anti-Semitic rhetoric to the Middle East? I mean, I do that. And are we using the definition of Semitic that includes arabs? It’s kind of a weasely word. And is the Fascism here referring to Fascism, or The Nazi’s specifically? I think there’s a good case for equating Islamic political thought with Fascism, especially Italian style.

Feel free to make that case with reference to actual islamists. Unless you’ve boned up on this subject since the last time we discussed it, I’ll save us both some time and say you aint got shit.

I don’t know why you’re so resistant to this, when it seems I’m think right along the same lines as moderate Muslims in the actual regions! It’s like your just here to be in a fight, or you’ll do anything to see Israel be required by popular outside demand to put up with weekly rocket fire from Gaza… which I find absurd.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by vikaTae:

The US already has socialist leanings. The police force is socialist through and through. So is medicaid and medicare. So are the schools.

The police force is generally small scale, though. The public school are generally smaller scale, and we see a super high failure rate as they scale up to serve large populations. Then, yes, medicaid and medicare, lol, what’s your point.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I guess I haven’t said it in caps yet: I’M NOT SOCIALIST. Also NOT AMERICAN. But as a disinterested observer I have to wonder how you think r-libertarianism would work with a large population if socialism doesn’t work.

r-libertarianism accepts small scales, in general preferring them. Since subsidiarity is built into the philosophy your question seems to indicate you don’t know much about libertarianism.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The only way to save our species is to dramatically reduce our population

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Beegum:

We’re already seeing a destabilizing effect from population decline.

Really? Where?

If you think about virulence we often find that mostly weak people get sick and healthy people get the germ but don’t get sick quite often.

Genetic resistance / immunity doesn’t work that way. How healthy you are has little effect on your genome, and thus on your inbuilt resistance to a pathogen.

So, when you talk about disease, I have to give something of a shrug as to what is happening in the world right now. The main things are Islamo-nazis and civilization collapse.

Naziism is not a pathogen.


[snip ]I’m removing your entire rant about ‘evil socialism’ as it has nothing to do with anything, and I’ve already addressed one left-field argument below, so there’s no point in addressing both of your left-field, completely discombobulated arguments. [/snip]

My point is that the stuff you’re talking about is, indeed, farther off.

Not that far off. The whole mess gets politicised of course, which makes it ten times worse. We don’t really do that whole ‘sharing’ thing as a species. Only within the local clan, not to other clans.

I would say the solutions to not having enough people are also farther off, whereas the negative effects of population loss are occurring right now and spreading.

Really? that’s why the world’s population is growing is it? Because population decline is a huge problem that is endemic throughout the world?

I think we have a spiritual poverty in the world
we have a collapse of spiritual basic dogma, such as predominantly natural law.
I hear regularly that people without religion can be moral, and I agree, BUT, as a civilization it seems to be an epic failure

You keep bringing in religion and systems of belief along with a hefty dose of racism, and you never explain how this chaff fits into your argument. You’re bringing it in in every argument you make in every thread you’re posting in, so I get that it’s central to you. It just seems to be completely disconnected from anything you’re actually discussing at the time. Here you seem to be arguing that our population as a species is dwindling – our numbers are shrinking across the globe (dispite the obvious reality) because not enough people are taking faith into their hearts. What?

I’m going to touch on the ‘natural law’ crap. Anything that is against natural law ie the laws of nature is physically impossible and cannot happen. The universe won’t permit it to happen, so it’s not happening. Either that or you’re using the quasi-religious-claptrap definition of ‘natural’, which has nothing in common with the natural world at all.

The obvious reality as you put it… right, population will increase slowly for a while yet. People hear that we’ll hit 7 billion and go crazy, but it’s taking a very long time to hit 7 billion from a historical perspective and that because the acceleration of our birth rates is downward. Even the UN reports show this, and they also forcast a precipitous decline in our population. AND, AND, you posted the population statistics without realizing what you posted. The Western world is facing population declines! It’s here right now, actually happening as we sit here with you in apparent denial of actual facts. It destroys economies and shunts everyone into healthcare professions. Also, if you’re looking for cause and effect with regards to consumerism, it appears to have a strong relationship with that as well. I think I’m faced with several obstinate individuals here while other gawkers just look on in wonder as I am.

As for a shortage of labor, that’s why after the black plague wages increased dramatically as labor dried up, also, as for specialties, the economics will fix pull people into the required fields, just as they do in our current economy to some extent… though there is an idealistic streak wherein people choose no career or skill at all or reject the jobs with market demand, such as nursing…

I try and remind people that one of the main indicators of personal happiness is wages. I think the break point is $35k/yr, that’s a few years old, but likely similar today like $40k/yr, or about $20/hr full time. So, while some people get dream jobs, it’s important for the rest to just pick an in demand field were they can achieve this fairly easily achievable wage.

Actually, natural law is also understood in legal theory as well, although some, and I mean some, certainly not all, liberal legal people think we can adjust natural law… that’s generally not going to happen. It’s actually more philosophical than religious, which is why I roped the atheists in on it. You’re actually depicting the problem I’m attempting to discuss here, by indicating the natural law is strictly religious or quasi-religious… it’s actually logical and philosophical but also the underpinnings of common religious moral teaching… the stuff one should expect out of any religion, though weaker religious traditions tend to bend rules according to popular demand.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bombing Of Gaza

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

The Islamofascist argument [which usually begins with the mufti of Jerusalem and then skips like 50 years of pan-Arabism] is just as much anti-semitism as labelling the Israelis Nazis.

Wait, what’s anti semitic about suggesting a cultural transfer from Euro Anti-Semitic rhetoric to the Middle East? I mean, I do that. And are we using the definition of Semitic that includes arabs? It’s kind of a weasely word.

Hitler controlled that region. People don’t have enough interest in history in general to figure out how plausible it is and come up with reasons to avoid the discomfort experts saying it. “Islamo-fascism” or however you want to say something similar… Nazis.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Personal attacks? Well, I’ve quickly discovered that I have to comb through your posts to pick out the few sentences that aren’t just flab or outright misleading, which is reminiscent of Ayn Rand’s approach to political theory. Also I’m not a socialist revolutionary, but right-libertarian blather does upset me.

Let’s review: You threw socialists in with neo-nazis and communists, which would be comparable to me discussing capitalism using examples like Edwardian England, apartheid South Africa and the migrant worker’s hell that is the UAE. Then Karma pointed out Scandinavia, which is obviously not failing, but your response is they’re not ‘really’ socialist, they’re social democrats which is true in the same sense that a liberal democracy isn’t ‘really’ liberal in the classical definition. Apparently economic freedom has been trademarked by capitalism or something, so socialist countries that aren’t ideologically pure aren’t socialist. Then you concluded by rambling about why big gov’t is evil because reasons.

Hey, funny thing. I hear this


I know, you think all those socialists aren’t really socialists and that we just need to try it another way. That’s what all socialists say. Either we didn’t really try Marxism or we need to do Marxism except with some stuff one of my leaders told me might work. That’s the cash value of what socialist revolutionaries tell me today.

a lot from Randheads, who don’t seem to realize that if they substituted Hayek and Rothbard for Marx, and libertarianism for socialism, it would be just as accurate. And the US flirtation with libertarianism with Coolidge, Tyler, Van Buren, Harding and Ford works out just as well as comparison to failed socialist states.


I did not, I may have not been perfectly clear that neo-nazis were a reaction to socialist, but it was close! If you’re proposing economic freedom in packages of just a few million self governed people then I’m not interested in this discussion any further. However, I’m guessing you think the US should have a socialist leaning FEDERAL government. I do not prefer the welfare state to one designed with more social mobility in mind based on economic freedom. Otherwise, I don’t have any hard reasons to oppose Scandinavian model welfare states, as long as SCALE is taken into consideration, which is generally not done, as I pointed out, by socialists, especially outside of Scandinavia.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I think the cop is the victim here. I think the community has been lied to and is perpetuating that lie, and we had very strong evidence of that come out today.

My assumptions are based on what I see and I assume many people see, as probability. What probably happened? I, in fact, gave the lying version the benefit of the doubt many times, and it seems there’s a real possibility that I was wrong to do so. The officer may have, in fact, chosen not to shoot Mike Brown on multiple occasions before he ultimately did. One wonders if that could explain the odd behavior in the officers ?unofficial? testimony, in addition to drugs. Anyway…


You know what would be awesome? Linking sources. What testimony? What probability? What are you talking about? In what fantasy universe do you live in is it EVER justified for a cop to shoot an unarmed man 6 times? And he’s supposed to be the victim?

I lol’d at the drugs innuendo. Because marijauna is like pcp, right?

He was shot in the front. Not the back, as the witnesses continuously told us. Now I’m sure they’ve got another explanation you’re ready to accept. Now, the officer said the man charged him. Actually it seemed like there were multiple instances where the kids could have been shot but the officer didn’t fire. Anyway, his explanation actually fits the autopsy. So an actual reasonable explanation as opposed to one that makes no sense give the facts decidedly takes precedence.

The officer said he thought he was on something. I have no idea how you jumped to guessing about my feelings with regards to marijuana, my guess is that you have hatred for people who don’t share your point of view and want reasonable explanations for things you used your emotions and political heroes to decide on.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bombing Of Gaza

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
Originally posted by Beegum:

Look, I know that there’s a lot of Nazi rhetoric sympathizers out there, such as people who blame Israel for the success of a particular banking family or blame Israelis for the suffering in the world. This is Nazi propaganda and it’s also racist. And, if I see some Muslim clerics read Mein Kampf and the watch them on video saying stuff like, “We will kill all the Jews” and “Where the Jews are there is suffering.”

Which is 100 % rhetoric. Many gulf states teach kids the Protocols…but what does that amount to in military action? Nothing. Is Hamas supposed to be the new Nazi party? You could just as easily argue that Israel is a Nazi state because their nationalism is based on blood purity literally and mythological land ties. Hell, it’s a better case than the Arabs because it extends past ideology; thijser compared Gaza to a concentration camp.

Except they aren’t Nazis, they’re just ultra-nationalist with a dash of religious fanaticism. Which is also an apt description for hamas. So yeah, it’s Godwin.

Well, as you admit, they use the rhetoric. But, you gloss over the fact they send and assist in the arming and manpower of Gaza to attack Israel. Like, as in actually kill the Jews. They have most of the main points of Nazis down there, all that’s missing is the idea that they are the ascendent culture… oh, ya, they’re Islamists. Godwin? Yes, I tried to avoid it myself, thinking the people who thought up Godwin’s law were smart, but they seem to be blinding people to reality here. It’s much harder to say that the hardcore Zionists are Nazis as they don’t actually wage war killing people, besides, as I pointed out Israel turned on them, voters in their democratic society, in order to buy peace with Gaza, and it failed.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The only way to save our species is to dramatically reduce our population

We’re already seeing a destabilizing effect from population decline. While there are other pressing issues like war, nothing comes to mind as threatening… maybe a biological attack… most diseases are actually fairly survivable with support measures, especially among healthy individuals, so, I don’t think virulence is actually that big of a problem. If you think about virulence we often find that mostly weak people get sick and healthy people get the germ but don’t get sick quite often. So, when you talk about disease, I have to give something of a shrug as to what is happening in the world right now. The main things are Islamo-nazis and civilization collapse. There’s fighting Africa over natural resources. Noam says capitalism is to blame, but, more likely it’s a lack of protection of property that is to blame, which is a failure of government. Since he’s a socialist a failure of government looks worse than blaming capitalism. He pretty much says that companies are hiring the militias to kill each other, and I can pretty much guarantee that that isn’t the case. That particular thing from him makes me question even paying attention to him anymore, despite having friends and… often debate partners… who think he’s quite smart.

My point is that the stuff you’re talking about is, indeed, farther off. I would say the solutions to not having enough people are also farther off, whereas the negative effects of population loss are occurring right now and spreading. I think we have a spiritual poverty in the world and it is spread due to unhealthy economic models proposed by militantly secular governments. And many of the problems we see are as result or adding to that.

And that isn’t necessarily asking for any particular religion, we have a collapse of spiritual basic dogma, such as predominantly natural law. People fail to realize that they may be killed for engaging in violent activity, for instance, and act all surprised when people die when they steal. This is a collapse of spiritual knowledge. They think they can pass laws to prevent this kind of death without engaging in oppression. I hear regularly that people without religion can be moral, and I agree, BUT, as a civilization it seems to be an epic failure, so, I think atheists that propose religion as necessary to public order just not for them have a much firmer grasp on reality than those who propose a need to free the world from religion.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Iraq Round Three

The Iraqis will need to suffer under the IS until they want to fight back. No one will help them until they’re ready to pick up arms and defend their own stuff… then, we might be able to help them. It seems odd to me that the peshmerga aren’t better equipped, since they’re our oldest ally there. The Iraqi military seems to have been equipped but the Kurds left wanting. Odd. While I tend toward libertarianism, the whole Nazi party across the Middle East is troubling, and doesn’t seem like the kind of thing we should or can afford to ignore.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The only way to save our species is to dramatically reduce our population

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Beegum:

Why would we lose our infrastructure?

Because I’m going to make the logical leap here that our infrastructure requires maintenance, and if it requires maintenance the further leap that it requires someone to do the maintaining.

Still with me here? Because if you don’t believe either of these points are true then we’ll need to go back and look at them again.

If there’s been some disaster, such as a failure of the fresh water system to provide fresh water that isn’t going to be easy to fix, an outbreak of plague sweeping the globe, a permanent or near permanent scarcity of crude oil (probably all three together), then the people who do the maintaining aren’t going to be spending their time maintaining, and are more likely to be spending their time trying to keep a roof over their heads and food in their bellies through whatever means are available to them. If there is a financial meltdowmn, these people aren’t going to be doing their jobs for free likewise, If repeated flooding year on year puts the infrastructure underwater, it’s going to be harder to maintain it, etc.

As society crumbles, those who maintain the infrastructure are not going to be spending their time maintaining the infrastructure. without maintenance the infrastructure will start to fail.

Power networks die (assuming they hadn’t already died through lack of fuel, or from a bomb blast in a conflict over fuels), that means anything that relies on power dies whether people are there to maintain it or not. Road networks deteriorate as fuel becomes scarce, or money to run a car becomes scarce. The physical roads are still there sure, but if they’re not being used, what good are they? Without transport commodities become harder and harder to get ahold of. Who will work on an empty stomach?

Not to mention that continued population growth gives so many more mouths to feed whilst global climate change reducesthe capability of the breadbaskets.

Ultimately you reach a point whete the basic infrastructure is not being maintained, and it fails. Might still be standing, but if it’s not working, standing doesn’t account for much.

Those with a survivalist mindset have stockpiled sure, but even their machines will require maintenance and spare parts. Eventuially those machines will break and they’ll have to get by with ever-greater reliance on what their own two hands provide.

the death of an advanced civilisation will bring down all the advanced tools ofthat civilisation, and without those tools we’re back in a dark age. For as many generations as it takes for things to stabilise, and for communities to start to grow again. A number of new civilisations emerging from the wreckage of the old. Struggling to get by, but slowly mastering ways to make things better, and over many more generations, turning into fledgeling countries.

The continents are all in the same places, but the world map (which is an utterly foreign concept at that point) has been drastically redrawn. It will take time for the new civilisations to discover one another, and likely war with one another. For new empires to grow and for the globe to be explored.

The imminent collapse is primarily a population collapse. It isn’t just imminent, it’s ongoing. We’re literally in the middle of it right now. There’s just this little hump of health care getting better in developing countries to get over and, given the rapid decline in their fertility rates we should be wooshing down the population slide in the fairly near future as time is considered in these matters. I’ll almost assuredly be alive during the precipitous drop. I thought you understood that, especially because you showed the population graphs.

All the important infrastructure will be maintained and the labor will likely be better paid. This would be like the collapse from plague. However, our failure to thrive as a species, which you… it’s unclear whether you think population is good or bad… will eventually be problematic, especially as the need to settle in places other than Earth seems more real.

I assume we’ll have to embrace religion again to get us back on track, but that won’t be enough. There are simply too many distractions and too much stress in the lives of people today to expect them to reproduce even at replacement levels, I think… Or, we’ll see evolution pick up as those more capable of surviving in our civilization eventually get past this barrier.

Assuredly the governments will continue their involvement in propping up failing fertility rates.

All the stuff you seem worried about is much farther down the road. For instance, it’ll be decades before humanity sees a net negative from climate change… sure some people are suffering, but, on average it should be quite good for us for decades before things even start to even out. Whereas, we’re experiencing population collapse right now.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
My first impression is that anytime I said, “black” you quoted those parts, which, lol, okay, let’s have a chat. Like over whether cops are targeting old black men. If you’re black, I’ll tease your dad if he thinks he’s getting profiled.

Not quite. I quoted the parts where you explicitly formed arguments based on assumptions, especially those that reflect the worldview that if a white cop shoots a black guy, the priority of guilt is 1) the black guy for getting in the way of his gun 2) the media for pointing out that the black guy did nothing to deserve getting shot 3) the white cop for poor decision-making.

Did I say they should have waited to release the video until later, did you remove that? YOU DID, how did you assert then not to have taken that out of context???!!!

I don’t think you understand what ‘in context’ means. I didn’t glue your sentences together to make you say things you never said. That’s as far as my obligation to fair-play need go. Contextually accurate doesn’t mean I have to be neutral. I said at the top of my last post that I was showing key examples of rightist propaganda which you seem to believe is an antidote for the ideological inverse.

But since you bring it up, let’s talk about this

Then the matter of this video tape. It seemed like it would inflict a lot of pain on the community, and it did, of course. The cops should probably have just held it, seeing as how things seemed to be just calming down, and released it a bit later. The guy looks like a thug, although the media likes to play down images that show him shoving some much smaller man around. In my estimation if the cashier had killed him right there we’d be watching that on fail/win compilations and self defense porn on youtube rather than having it go down like this. Also, if he didn’t die we wouldn’t hear much about it at all.

As you point out later on, it’s ‘inflammatory’. But not because “it wasn’t the right time” or “more suited for the courtroom”, but because the images are disturbing and no matter how you try to cast the black guy in a bad light, it makes the police look really really bad. Which certainly isn’t good news for someone trying to pad them with justifications.

Normally, I would share personal stories with you in order to help you understand anything you’re having trouble with here.


No? I’ve got one. There’s a radio station my folks listen to at home. They’re both journalists and it’s the only decent morning local news station [the only other one is very leftist, run by uni students] . When the news portion ends, the editorials come on, and there’s one pundit in particular that drove my folks nuts. If the local tory politician got caught stealing from gov’t funds, or an oilsands corporation got accused of giving the downstream towns cancer, this guy would always be taking a stand for the victims: that is, the politician and the corporation. And even though the pundit himself worked in the media, he’d be the first one to denounce them for ‘bias and sensationalism’. My folks nicknamed him “the champion of the overdog”.

I think the cop is the victim here. I think the community has been lied to and is perpetuating that lie, and we had very strong evidence of that come out today.

My assumptions are based on what I see and I assume many people see, as probability. What probably happened? I, in fact, gave the lying version the benefit of the doubt many times, and it seems there’s a real possibility that I was wrong to do so. The officer may have, in fact, chosen not to shoot Mike Brown on multiple occasions before he ultimately did. One wonders if that could explain the odd behavior in the officers ?unofficial? testimony, in addition to drugs. Anyway…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The only way to save our species is to dramatically reduce our population

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Beegum:

In an ironic twist, I can somewhat agree with you here. We may be back to hunter gatherer, but not by force, rather by choice. That is one of the possible solutions. We’ll be well educated and all that stuff and some people will, of course, have high tech support jobs for the whole thing…

How do you have high tech support jobs without a power grid? Is this the equivalent of the guru sitting on the mountaintop pulling sage advice out of the ether?

I don’t think we’re in a situation to forget all the stuff that supports our technological existence.

Without the infrastructure that supports it, we will lose it. You cannot manually read the books off a computer harddrive when there is no power avaialble, and any attempt to jury-rig power without knowing the specifics of what the harddrive was meant to take will blow it. To see a practical demonstration, take an old, still functioning harddrive, make up a cable to plug it directly into the mains and plug it in (Do NOT still be holding it when it goes live, if you wish to stay alive).

The collapse that is coming, whrether over ideological all-out war, resource wars, financial collapse, plague, climate change, mass starvation or access to fresh water (most likely a combination of all of them) will wreck our infrastructure and ability to maintain our civilisation. Animal instincts in the populations will do much of the rest. The decline will be long and messy, not an instant thing. But in the end, likely generations later, there won’t be a lot left.

We will probably get fusion power. Power may go away as an issue. This will not solve the problem and likely will make it worse.

Cold fusion is unworkable, so we won’t get that. Other forms of fusion we’re nowhere near technologically advanced enough to handle.

We’re reliant on conventional forms of power for the duration: fossil fuels, biomass, renewables and nuclear fission. There are power consumption, environmental impact and resource distribution nightmares associated with each of them that won’t go away any time soon. As most and more of the world industrialises, the pinch gets tighter and tighter, and the problems become more acute.

There’s talk of trading power between countries as other commodities are traded, but so far, that isn’t much more than talk for a lot of countries. Resources for providing power are still hotly contested as bargaining chips, which references the resource war issue once again. The Russian gas pipelines through Ukraine being a topical example.

Ultiamtely it’s human nature that’s the problem, and human nature which is going to lead to the downfall of modern civilisation. We’re still stuck in the primitive tribal mindset, and our evolution has lost pace with our capabilities.

Why would we lose our infrastructure? Sure, we could scale it back, and probably even upgrade what was left. I don’t see why you are stuck with this idea that a collapse is going would send us back 6000+ years. We’ve had collapses since then. They are all a different than each other. We have had recent success with some sort of laser fusion. I’m not sure it’s considered cold fusion, in fact, I have reasons I think it is not considered cold fusion. I think they’re exploding something in a super powerful magnetic/laser cage. As far as our tribal type minds go, this hasn’t stopped us so far from building big governments, but, I think it further indicates the need for small interconnected governments as an evolution in our human organization.

There is absolutely no reason to think we’re going to run out of coal in the next couple hundred years, at least, when we’re amidst this collapse. Some parts of the world are already in it, and the rest, basically, has precipitously falling fertility rates and will soon join. A few decades later after the world greys well see a precipitous decline in population, that will be the continuation of the collapse we see across Europe and Russia… it’s also in the US but we’re not really suffering due to our incredibly generous legal immigration policies.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The only way to save our species is to dramatically reduce our population

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Beegum:

Maybe in thousands of years coal might be hard to dig up, but right now it’s just sitting there right near the surface, and, in fact, on the surface, you can go and pick some up. You’ll see it all black along with other rocks.

Not in enough quantity to power an industrial revolution.

In all I just find a lot to disagree with. I think it’s unavoidable that our civilization will collapse in historical terms. We’ll call this some kind of collapse event when human population takes a significant decline, at least if projections hold. I disagree with what that actually means. I don’t think we’ll fail and go pre-industrial.

You don’t think a worldwide resurgance of diseases like the black death you mentioned, and all the other diseases like cholera that will become commonplace once the freshwater grid fails, will lead to people abandoning higher pursuits in the name of bare bones basic survival?

Well, that’s…odd.

In any case it will definitely change our civilization and we’ll need to figure out how to counteract it.

That’e easy. Once we stop falling and can start building stable societies again, we’ll become hunter-gatherers. Once the society learns enough to bring enough food in for everyone, the population will start to grow. Of course every disease on the planet will be an issue especially as penicillin and other medicines have gone the way of the dodo by this point, and if you get a bad cut it’ll probably kill you. But with an average life expectancy of twenty years you’re not missing out on much.

It’ll just be a long, slow haul to relearn what we need to relearn, and slowly form countries bigger than a small township. It’s not so bad. We’ve been in old testament times before. Your descendants will be perfectly fine living in them again.

In an ironic twist, I can somewhat agree with you here. We may be back to hunter gatherer, but not by force, rather by choice. That is one of the possible solutions. We’ll be well educated and all that stuff and some people will, of course, have high tech support jobs for the whole thing… I don’t think we’re in a situation to forget all the stuff that supports our technological existence. A collapse will simply not mean needing to repeat the industrial revolution. I don’t think we have to fear that. We’re not going to forget how to build and power engines and refine steel. We may see a slow down in technological advancement in fields other than healthcare, but healthcare looks like it’ll be strong throughout due to the particulars of this collapse.

This is a particular moment in time. We aren’t going back to hunter gatherer due to necessity (in a reality coerces us sense anyway), just as we never had to in other collapses. I highly doubt we will run out of coal. We will probably get fusion power. Power may go away as an issue. This will not solve the problem and likely will make it worse.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The only way to save our species is to dramatically reduce our population

Maybe in thousands of years coal might be hard to dig up, but right now it’s just sitting there right near the surface, and, in fact, on the surface, you can go and pick some up. You’ll see it all black along with other rocks.

In all I just find a lot to disagree with. I think it’s unavoidable that our civilization will collapse in historical terms. We’ll call this some kind of collapse event when human population takes a significant decline, at least if projections hold. I disagree with what that actually means. I don’t think we’ll fail and go pre-industrial. In fact, we had collapses, such as during the black plague and so forth that were terribly traumatic, but didn’t turn out so bad. The population definitely collapsed. The civilizations collapse ended up with revolutions as a result, and we’re in that right now. We didn’t lose a bunch of tech, although recovery took some time and the repercussions took a good amount of time to form as well. I suppose it’s important to note that, that the government took much longer to collapse as a result of this particular collapse than the population did, although they did ultimately succumb to the changes in the population that resulted.

Most of the developed countries need to conscript these days and even deploy conscripts, even though this is known to be a terribly inefficient practice. I think we find it helps maintain order and security after they’re out not quite competitive with the 2nd amendment, but that’s an aside. Consider that the US might actually have to do this, would be like one thing to think about.

In any case it will definitely change our civilization and we’ll need to figure out how to counteract it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by Beegum:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Not looking so much for a bull-blown action; just wanting to know if this is akin to what he sees as “the beginning” … whether it is ultimately later incorporated as the official groundswell beginning. Often those who light the fuse are long gone before any serious opposition is formed. It’s a bit like a domino-effect; with each domino getting exponentially larger.

It would be amazing if they voted en masse someone who was not pro-establishment. It’s like they vote for change, but all they get is attacks against country folks with guns and a more militarized government to deal with the supposed problem that might occur if they managed to oppress country folk.

I have trouble believing that’s what they’re actually voting for, lol.

Thanks for bringing up the militarization of American police. I can now segue this into something I’ve thought about making a thread for.

Something to read


Something from the ALCU


Police getting used equipment from military. “The flood of equipment being funneled from the Department of Defense to local police departments traces back to a program created in the 1990s. The excess property program, known as 1033, was initially created to help state and local authorities in the war against drugs, and help unused military equipment find a home — as opposed to being needlessly destroyed.”


Bad boyz, bad boyz….who ya gonna call?. However, were it YOU who was tasked w/ handling CERTAIN situations (and, who knows just how uncertain one can quickly become?), wouldn’t you want to have everything possible to protect YOU while doing your job of “To serve and protect” those you “work” for?


Was the militarized police used in Ferguson over-the-top? Was it necessary. Did it actually do more harm than good? Could the situation have been handled via lesser means?

Rioters don’t enter areas that protected by armed civilians. We’ve seen this multiple times, including in these riots. They don’t enter white neighborhoods where there’s a perception that white people are crazy and will shoot, which, is true to some extent, because white people are much more likely to be armed… They didn’t burn down… was it little china town… in LA… because the stores had armed men on the roofs. This is a major part of the situations we see, not the whole thing. Tear gas is much better than firing into a crowd, and certainly few people think that throwing moltov cocktails is something one should be able to do without running the risk of being harmed in return.

I have mixed feelings about the cops response to this. Partially, because they released that inflammatory video, more suited for the courtroom than the city which was just calming down. On the other hand, many of the arrests are people who came from outside the community staying out past the curfew and rioting and looting. One assumes they’re coming from St. Louis, for instance. Thus, one can conclude, that the city is being invaded at night from outside and we’re expected to go easy on these guys because they’re black? It seems like many of the black people are on a team that sadly refuses to accept their neighbors.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

They had some girl on TV just now describing Mike Brown as a ‘young boy’. In reality he was 6’4", 300lbs, and 19 years old. That short enough?

And? Your counter-argument isn’t to peel off the whitewashing, it’s combating leftist propaganda with rightist propaganda, conspiracy theories and victim blaming. Some examples?

it’s easier for me to believe interested party or racist black person made up a story or the officer couldn’t see, than to believe he was so stupid he executed someone in the street during the day with people watching.

In any case there’s little argument about how the first shots were justified, as they almost assuredly were. Whatever was happening in the cop car the teen was almost assuredly seen resisting it and then fleeing on foot…we can infer that the cop may have attempted to control the situation by drawing his firearm. And then the common mistake people make instinctively is to block the firearm, at which point, it’s said “he went for my gun”. That’s probably how that part played out.

The guy looks like a thug, although the media likes to play down images that show him shoving some much smaller man around…Also, if he didn’t die we wouldn’t hear much about it at all.

It’s brought up other stuff, like how white people don’t have to talk to their kids about cops, which I think is obviously untrue….So, maybe, I guess the kind of insular liberals that work in media are also too stupid to think talking to their kids about cops is a good idea or necessary, or maybe they’re just interested in protecting their precious victim demographic is what’s important, which is absolutely despicable and likely partly true… not to mention it seems like actual racism.

And then the idea that only black men worry about intimidating people and how they are perceived, that comes up. Hey, maybe it’s more common for black guys, but, if you have balls, chances are you’ve worried about the same thing.

At least we moved past old black dudes claiming the same type of trouble with the cops that never made sense.

None of that is out of context; I’ve simply reduced your post to a size people would actually read, and voilà.

What are you trying to say?
Normally, I would share personal stories with you in order to help you understand anything you’re having trouble with here. It’s kind of weird how you posted it. I’m not accusing you of taking it out of context, though, I think by definition that’s what was done, I haven’t read over it close enough to see if you paraphrased or anything. My first impression is that anytime I said, “black” you quoted those parts, which, lol, okay, let’s have a chat. Like over whether cops are targeting old black men. If you’re black, I’ll tease your dad if he thinks he’s getting profiled.

Did I say they should have waited to release the video until later, did you remove that? YOU DID, how did you assert then not to have taken that out of context???!!!

IT’S CLEARLY OUT OF CONTEXT. And it still doesn’t read as racist. Does he look like a thug in that video? You think no? Really. I’ve seen that asserted by a few sympathetic people in the media, otherwise, the backlash from the community ECHOS WHAT I SAID!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Not looking so much for a bull-blown action; just wanting to know if this is akin to what he sees as “the beginning” … whether it is ultimately later incorporated as the official groundswell beginning. Often those who light the fuse are long gone before any serious opposition is formed. It’s a bit like a domino-effect; with each domino getting exponentially larger.

It would be amazing if they voted en masse someone who was not pro-establishment. It’s like they vote for change, but all they get is attacks against country folks with guns and a more militarized government to deal with the supposed problem that might occur if they managed to oppress country folk.

I have trouble believing that’s what they’re actually voting for, lol.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The only way to save our species is to dramatically reduce our population

It would likely be water and wind again. Fossil fuels help spread energy out, but you can get plenty concentrated power from water and now wind.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Very little surprise here: Beegum
Latest Activity: Played AdVenture Capitalist (26 minutes ago)

Perhaps he might like some info that doesn’t come from what appears to be “conservative” sources. Sources who (sole?) main purpose is to preserve the capitalistic hold they are being paid to promote.

It appears that well executed, “socialism” can be quite successful.
“And yet joining Norway in the top 10 prosperous countries are its Scandinavian sisters Denmark, Finland and Sweden, with equally small and civilized Switzerland and the Netherlands also in the club. None of these countries are blessed with great hoards of oil and gas.”

“What else? They are all borderline socialist states, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth. Yet they don’t let that socialism cross the line into autocracy. Civil liberties are abundant (consider decriminalized drugs and prostitution in the Netherlands). There are few restrictions on the flow of capital or of labor. Legatum’s scholars point out that Denmark, for example, has little job protection, but generous unemployment benefits. So business owners can keep the right number of workers, while workers can have a safety net while they muck around looking for that fulfilling job.”

I saw a bumper sticker here in Wichita just yesterday: Link. Obviously another American who just doesn’t “get it” when it comes to macro-economics.
.

Originally posted by Beegum:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Could it be perhaps that the reason unemployment is high is to do with the yanno, actual recession? Perhaps?


And that’s where you look for contrasts in the various economic models in use today.

A great idea. I highly suggest that you do it.

Well, when we’re talking about welfare states in the Scandanavian club, one of the immediate things we recognize is that they have been applauded in many cases for certain areas of economic freedom. Here, you suppose I have not done this comparison, and point out some successful welfare state, that, among other things, are not in denial about the damage the economic model of socialism does. In fact, you find countries that go about their work attempting to make up for the damage done by high tax rates and so forth, such that their tax rate is arguably not all that high. You further find that these states are fairly small and resistant to EU interventions. Because they are fairly small, resistant to EU interventions, and do what they can to achieve economic freedom despite their embrace of the welfare state model, it seems like propaganda to consider them ‘socialist’ in the same way most people in the US, certainly, would define it, and likewise in in other countries like France and Spain.

While we have seen some changes in democrats in the state recently, it’s clear that our progressive, liberals, democrats, have consistently wanted to use the biggest government in the world, essentially all the time to solve every problem. As I said, we’ve seen some change in this, at least in rhetoric in more conservative areas, we’ll see how it plays out. But, if you want to sell me on the worlds biggest government doing stuff, I’ll pass, I think most people in the developed world have decided that that isn’t working… even though it’s a typical socialist position, perhaps a definitive one that we’re supposed to ignore, often paying the price.