One thing that you guys might be able to help me with. The climate change people don't want us to drive cars, eat meat, fly on holiday anywhere, have wood burning fires and things like that because of carbon footprints, yet the same guys are all cheering on the war in Ukraine and sending weapons there that not only keep it going, but all cause massive burning. The amount of stuff burning there every day is almost beyond imagination, but somehow that doesn't leave footprints? Is that squabble between two neighbouring countries really more important than saving the whole planet? Greta and others said that we only have 8 years left, and we're now in year four, but they all want to keep Ukraine burning with no end in sight. I personally haven't seen any change since Greta said that and they all agreed. It's only got worse. Does that mean we're all doomed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcjzcErMdwQ:37

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/01/21/thunberg-says-eight-years-left-avert-1-5c-warming/

Edited June 5, 20232 yr by saneagle

Life forms don't really work like that. They do not reproduce according to the economic needs of society - outside totalitarian systems like Mao's China. They reproduce according to their own best interests - like viruses really. They have no interest in what are sensible societal or Gaia type goals.

 

I didn't for one moment think it would be voluntary.

 

However, having said that, voluntarism is creeping in. When the Chinese gave up on their one child policy there was no return to the old trend towards 2 billion. Instead the population have stayed inclined to remain with 1.4 billions.

 

And in Japan where they have been notoriously giving up on reproductive sex, the change is even more dramatic. For the last 12 years the population and birthrate have fallen substantially every year. If present trends continue their population will have fallen 20% from their near 125 millions by 2056. Little wonder that they have been creating robots to assist with such as the needs of the elderly.

 

And of course even here marriage has become far less popular and couples in partnerships are increasingly deciding not to have children.

.

wars make big money so that's fine we need the sales

One thing that you guys might be able to help me with. The climate change people don't want us to drive cars, eat meat, fly on holiday anywhere, have wood burning fires and things like that because of carbon footprints, yet the same guys are all cheering on the war in Ukraine and sending weapons there that not only keep it going, but all cause massive burning. The amount of stuff burning there every day is almost beyond imagination, but somehow that doesn't leave footprints? Is that squabble between two neighbouring countries really more important than saving the whole planet? Greta and others said that we only have 8 years left, and we're now in year four, but they all want to keep Ukraine burning with no end in sight.

 

I can help you with that, it's all about keeping the population under control, as the old saying predicts, idle hands make work for the devil.

 

While there's a war the population are kept busy worrying about and dealing with the fallout from that.

 

But in peace with time for us to be nuisances, our politicians need to create things for us to fear in order to keep us in check, such as climate change threat, pandemics, economic recessions, high unemployment.

 

Long ago there was no need for these, since we were threatened by religious punishment such as purgatory and hell if we disobeyed our leaders. But the decline in religious belief from the 17th century on has led us to where we no longer have any belief in such things, so modern political substitutes have become necessary.

 

That is what the cold war was about, there never actually was a cold war. It was simply the way that the winners of WW2 jointly decided at Yalta to keep their populations in check. And it worked for 40 years.

.

Edited June 5, 20232 yr by flecc

I can help you with that, it's all about keeping the population under control, as the old saying predicts, idle hands make work for the devil.

 

While there's a war the population are kept busy worrying about and dealing with the fallout from that.

 

But in peace with time for us to be nuisances, our poiticians need to create things for us to fear in order to keep us in check, such as climate change threat, pandemics, economic recessions, high unemployment.

 

Long ago there was no need for these, since we were threatened by religious punishment such as purgatory and hell if we disobeyed our leaders. But the decline in religious belief from the 17th century on has led us to where we no longer have any belief in such things, so modern political substitutes have become necessary.

.

 

But as you pointed out above (I think you did) people in western societies are already limiting their reproductive fertility. They are doing it because it suits them to do so. The birth rates per woman in most of Europe are very low. In Italy and Spain it is almost at one child China levels - 1.24 children per female in Italy and 1.23 in Spain. Uk is 1.56, Scotland 1.31. I differentiate because Scotland has fewer migrant people who boost the English data. France has 1.9, but 19% were born to migrant mothers. EU sources have a number of articles about it.

 

Population growth in the west is down to migration. The huge growth in human population is in Africa and parts of South Asia.

 

 

EDIT: Reading your post again, I note that it is more about social control than population growth. I think I jumped on that topic because of the earlier remarks.

I can help you with that, it's all about keeping the population under control, as the old saying predicts, idle hands make work for the devil.

 

While there's a war the population are kept busy worrying about and dealing with the fallout from that.

 

But in peace with time for us to be nuisances, our poiticians need to create things for us to fear in order to keep us in check, such as climate change threat, pandemics, economic recessions, high unemployment.

 

Long ago there was no need for these, since we were threatened by religious punishment such as purgatory and hell if we disobeyed our leaders. But the decline in religious belief from the 17th century on has led us to where we no longer have any belief in such things, so modern political substitutes have become necessary.

 

That is what the cold war was about, there never actually was a cold war. It was simply the way that the winners of WW2 jointly decided at Yalta to keep their populations in check. And it worked for 40 years.

.

Are you suggesting that Greta is just trying to scare us and the planet won't explode in 4 years time and we should support the war in Ukraine because it's reducing the world population?

 

I would have thought that a war in India or China would reduce the population more than Ukraine.

But as you pointed out above (I think you did) people in western societies are already limiting their reproductive fertility. They are doing it because it suits them to do so. The birth rates per woman in most of Europe are very low. In Italy and Spain it is almost at one child China levels - 1.24 children per female in Italy and 1.23 in Spain. Uk is 1.56, Scotland 1.31. I differentiate because Scotland has fewer migrant people who boost the English data. France has 1.9, but 19% were born to migrant mothers. EU sources have a number of articles about it.

 

Population growth in the west is down to migration. The huge growth in human population is in Africa and parts of South Asia.

 

 

EDIT: Reading your post again, I note that it is more about social control than population growth. I think I jumped on that topic because of the earlier remarks.

Are you sure it's not something they put in the water? I can remember years ago when they were putting female hormones in chickens to make the grow, and a whole load of guys started growing tits and doing knitting. There seems to be a whole load of transsexuals these days and the gay movement is bigger than ever. Or was it something they put in the covid jab? Luckily, I still have a healthy appetite for women because I didn't have the jab. The problem is that it's becoming more difficult to tell which is which. I have to do that, "what's that up on the ceiling" trick.

Edited June 5, 20232 yr by saneagle

Are you suggesting that Greta is just trying to scare us and the planet won't explode in 4 years time and we should support the war in Ukraine because it's reducing the world population?

 

I would have thought that a war in India or China would reduce the population more than Ukraine.

 

Greta believes what she is saying, but is in danger of getting trapped on an Ixion's wheel of her own devising.

 

I don't support any war anywhere since all wars are pointless and achieve nothing.

.

Are you sure it's not something they put in the water? I can remember years ago when they were putting female hormones in chickens to make the grow, and a whole load of guys started growing tits and doing knitting. There seems to be a whole load of transsexuals these days and the gay movement is bigger than ever. Or was it something they put in the covid jab? Luckily, I still have a healthy appetite for women because I didn't have the jab. The problem is that it's becoming more difficult to tell which is which. I have to do that, "what's that up on the ceiling" trick.

 

Your credibility sinks lower and lower with your homophobic/transphobic remarks on top of other nonsense. Sounds like you are going for a full house on the conspiracy theorist's bingo card. Time to ease back on the Russia Today viewing perhaps?

Your credibility sinks lower and lower with your homophobic/transphobic remarks on top of other nonsense. Sounds like you are going for a full house on the conspiracy theorist's bingo card. Time to ease back on the Russia Today viewing perhaps?

There we go again with the labels. That's what people do when they've lost the arguement. You managed three in one short post. It looks like a terminal case - better get some treatment quick.

There we go again with the labels. That's what people do when they've lost the arguement. You managed three in one short post. It looks like a terminal case - better get some treatment quick.

Looking at the posts sequentially, I think you'll find that you lost the argument first. The only issue around sexuality that might just possibly be relevant to cycling, is that of trans men competing in female racing. Otherwise, live and let live.

There we go again with the labels. That's what people do when they've lost the arguement. You managed three in one short post. It looks like a terminal case - better get some treatment quick.

 

 

Well you know the saying, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck...

 

However, if you don't like the "labels" (which you have chosen to give yourself) let's unpack the shorthand. A lot of it just makes you appear foolish, so I'll leave that to you to carry on with until Darwin catches up with you. The key parts which take you beyond the realms of foolish are:

 

your issues with homosexual people,

your issues with women

your issues with the trans community.

 

I suspect you also have issues with various other groups in society too.

 

Anyway, by inciting hatred against such groups you indicate your lack of judgement, lack of wisdom and generally the kind of person you are. It is also against the rules of the forum.

 

 

I don't think we can stop AI, too much hubris, greed, hatred etc in the world. Someone, somewhere will do it for all kinds of reasons, good and bad.

 

I think our only hope is to make lots of different AIs and let them fight it out amongst themselves and hope that a wise and benevolent AI wins out.

Anyway, by inciting hatred against such groups you indicate your lack of judgement, lack of wisdom and generally the kind of person you are. It is also against the rules of the forum.

he is a libertarian. I reckon he does not mind winning or losing an argument. He's just taken up the defense of the weak, in this case, Andrew Tate against the BBC interviewer. Tate isn't liked by you and me, but he's free to spread his version of blokeism or worse. How Tate is making a living is up to him, his girls and google who pays him for clicks.

he is a libertarian. I reckon he does not mind winning or losing an argument. He's just taken up the defense of the weak, in this case, Andrew Tate against the BBC interviewer. Tate isn't liked by you and me, but he's free to spread his version of blokeism or worse. How Tate is making a living is up to him, his girls and google who pays him for clicks.

 

That's not the issue. Andrew Tate can say whatever crap he likes, I'm not interested. Although, if someone stands up here and says they support his views, they can expect some push back. But most of all, it's the foolishness of trying to compare people like Andrew Tate to Jesus and then using this forum for promoting views which are against the rules of the forum - that is the main issue here.

I don't think we can stop AI, too much hubris, greed, hatred etc in the world. Someone, somewhere will do it for all kinds of reasons, good and bad.

 

I think our only hope is to make lots of different AIs and let them fight it out amongst themselves and hope that a wise and benevolent AI wins out.

The Times article started with this 'AI systems are powerful enough to kill many humans'. Hello? where have you been in the last decade or two? Machine learning is the previous name for AI. Just look at our various weapon systems and drones, which ones don't have machine learning components in them?

The issue we have is the speed of advancement in AI. OpenAI, Google and FB spent hundreds of millions dollars each year in recent times, now they are spending billions and Apple, Amazon and Nvidia have also joined the race with zillions of open source developers. The danger is in the increase in funding and manpower . When you see so much money is piling in, investors expect a quick return, we'll see AI manipulating stock prices very soon.

Edited June 6, 20232 yr by Woosh

That's not the issue. Andrew Tate can say whatever crap he likes, I'm not interested. Although, if someone stands up here and says they support his views, they can expect some push back. But most of all, it's the foolishness of trying to compare people like Andrew Tate to Jesus and then using this forum for promoting views which are against the rules of the forum - that is the main issue here.

I don't think saneagle supports Tate's view litterally. He tends to use the third person in his narrative so not to mix his true thoughts with Tate's.

Mars declared unsafe for humans to live as no one can survive for longer than four years

https://www.unilad.com/news/mars-too-dangerous-four-year-missions-935063-20230602

Mars declared unsafe for humans to live as no one can survive for longer than four years

 

we will have invented magnetic shields powered by fusion rectors before we have long term missions there.

we will have invented magnetic shields powered by fusion reactors before we have long term missions there.

 

Indeed.

 

But we still won't be able to get our crops picked and into the supermarkets.

 

'tis a wondrous thing, human progress.

.

We already have nuclear fusion and essentially unlimited energy. It exists today, 93 million miles away and right now (14.58 on 5th June, the UK is getting 27.5% of its electrical power from it. Solar energy.

 

In fact we are getting 100% of our energy from it in the form of fossilised solar energy from ancient plants and animals that was laid down in the past under the ground and under shallow seas.

 

We also get all of our own animal energy from it in our food.

 

There are readily available technologies to extract and store solar energy on a huge scale if we had the gumption to do it. A tiny fraction of the Sahara desert set up with either photovoltaic or concentrated solar thermal power plant would supply the entire planet with more energy than it could feasibly use. We already have mature technologies for doing this, but we lack the will to do it at scale.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-concentrating-solar-tower-is-worth-its-salt-with-24-7-power/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

 

 

New Satellite Successfully Beams Power From Space

 

https://www.universetoday.com/161759/new-satellite-successfully-beams-power-from-space/

I have been following space missions for decades and am well aware of all the difficulties, to the point that I could believe that the first moon landing was a hoax (flag fluttering on the surface of the moon and all that...).

Still, I believe that space mining is possible and perhaps we could colonise one of the six moons (Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune's).

70 years ago, we just discovered the double helix structure of DNA.

Now we can breakdown the whole genome for under £1,000.

I think you underestimate the ability of the human brain.

I think you are overestimating my human brain.

Are you guys saying that real men actually landed on the moon?

They had to black out the face area of their helmets because they could not stop laughing.

Was The Shining Stanley Kubrick admitting he faked the moon landing?

 

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/was-the-shining-stanley-kubricks-way-of-admitting-101415076.html

 

 

The Wildest Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories, Debunked

Claims the Apollo 11 mission was staged began soon after astronauts first set foot on the moon in 1969.

https://www.history.com/news/moon-landing-fake-conspiracy-theories