For some reason this number makes me despair. Here I am thinking about biking to work again. I use estate sales to buy some of the things I want, clothes, kitchen stuff, tools, partly because it's cheap and partly because it's true recycling. I put in energy efficient bulbs. I keep the heat turned down.
Meanwhile the human race is reproducing like bunny rabbits. Is any individual effort even remotely meaningful? Should I care about the next wave of floods and storms and droughts killing off a hundred thousand at a sweep? Should i hold back on charitable giving for medical care to the destitute, and spend it on a trip to Vegas?
I don't know what's right, or what's humanistic. The human race is pretty much like a bunch of pigs in a pig sty, and are rushing headlong to self destruction. If we consume every thing in site, drown ourselves in our own shit, and continue pumping out litters of babies, why should I even try? How do I know what's right and what's wrong?
My 2 cents.
Which is exactly why the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is NOT about suicide, but about convincing others everywhere to stop breeding. Of course this will not bring on human extinction, because there will always be some who breed, but such activism hopefully will effect a significant reduction of human numbers, to bring that number more in line with other living beings on earth. Hopefully, we can enact policies at the government level which instead of encouraging breeding... discourage it. This means changing our medical practices and our family taxation to begin with...
if you think that offing yourself would be the best method to cease the rape of this planet, then i would suggest that you do so...
however i suggest several other options
you seem like you are familiar with science.
nikola tesla ..
if it were not for ELITE WHITE SUPREMISTS and megalomaniacal governmental structures, this planets blood, ie oil, would not constantly be getting depleted for energy.
if people ATE properly, then there would be about 90% LESS POLUTION on this planet
if LIES were not the foundation of this whole paradigm, THEN there would be less drivle being spouted period.
I second Nerd's scary but well intended analogy.
Empower woman-that is the single most effective way of benefiting communities small and large. Smarter the woman, smarter the environment supporting them.
There is responsible ways of increasing population to certain regions (Machakos Reserve in Kenya). Science magazine published a special population issue in July that was free to non-subscribers that tries to answer some of the population questions , but some of the articles left me with questions I had not thought about before.
Individually speaking, just because all your neighbors are assholes, does not mean you should be one too.
the reason that MATRIARCHY was abandoned was due to the same megalomaniacal elitists...
women in my opinion are the only ones suitable to RUN society
men are HUNTING AND GATHERING and are very transitory.. we gotta go here and there to support our family and our future( sorry if i am offending homosexuals lol sheesh)
wombmen have been blessed with the ability to house new life in them, and for a period of about 3 years from the time of conception, have to remain somewhat stable, to ensure the development and nourishment of her child.
thus SHE WILL BE IN THE COMMUNITY FAR MORE THAN THE MAN...does it make sense for a man to remotely dictate the daily operations of the village or community?or does it make sense for the elders who are ever present ( the females, mothers sisters daughters) to run the day to day operations?
because of ignorance and FEAR the "physically larger and stronger" have made the most perfect form of man( ie the woman) cower in subservience for centuries...
this was not always the case
that is the very RECENT and muddled etymon
the original word for man was not were...
if you knew anything about etymon, you would know that m and w are different words and would be the root of two different words...
english is a dialect that comes from several languages
the word black comes from the primitive germanic blaek
which is the root for bleach blanch blanka bleak and originally meant PALE and without hue...
you really should do a lil more research before trying to refute the statements i make...
people who refute just to refute, have lots of time to waste....
in society where men are hunting and gathering..trading and being merchants
fghting wars etc...
who is at home running the househhold..
this is very very simple
we are not swapping one gender for the other..
we are being practical and logical
ie males do not have wombs...
does that make women better?
it just makes them different
it is called balance...
this is something you may have a hard tome grasping noting your predisposition
Matriarchy has never existed, so it was never 'abandoned'. Societies that preceded patriarchal organisation of labour and order and religion were simply characterised by a balance of power. Men have always had more muscle, the balance came from the 'mystery' of birth.
matriarchy never existed?
maybe not for the last 3000 yrs..
but my friend...
you are clearly wrong about your statement.
and mystery of birth?
do you have a belly button?
so does everyone ...
ie u came from your mamma
Consider the example of Easter Island, where overpopulation destroyed the carrying capacity. Yes there were survivors, but they weren't better adapted than their ancestors, just ordinary people forced to eke out a poor existence in an impoverished ecosystem. When we repeat their "experiment" on a global scale, the damage will be far more severe.
There's a real possibility that we could make the planet uninhabitable. Actually I see this as a sort of "natural" test. Either we figure out some way to control our innate drives to overproduce cooperatively, universally, with justice, or we hit the wall.
There are ways to elicit universal cooperation that are fair, rather than hierarchical control or famine/disease/war. If everyone had something to gain, as well as to lose, it becomes a negotiation. Imagine valuable reproductive rights as a second form of currency, competing with money. So if you invest in a company that destroys the planet, you automatically lose reproductive rights, for example. If you work hard to build sustainability, you gain a few extra points toward having a baby. We have sophisticated knowledge of how people and institutions operate, what motivates, what works. Thus far we haven't had the political will to apply our insight into population planning, or the universal information system needed to implement it. But we could. Of course by the time the planet is ready to do this, we'll already have lost most of what we still have left. There will inevitably be a bottleneck. But I have hope that we could smarten up in time to avoid extinction.
what you have heard about easter island is not accurate.
overpopulation was NEVER something that NOMADIC people who built and travelled around the entire globe were highly concerned with...
overpopulation became a concern when people with recessive genetics copulated with people who had dominant genetics..
dont believe the hype
Recessive and dominant genes combining happens pretty much all the time.
Your response doesn't make sense. All populations have recessive and dominant genes of all sorts. Just because the Easter Island ancestors were "nomadic", in the sense that they explored vast ocean expanses looking for new homes, doesn't exempt them from population dynamics of isolated habitats, which impact every species from bacteria in a jar to 7 billion human beings stuck on one planet.