Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

About That Global Warming...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • [QUOTE=radcentr;n553799]
    Extinction is part of the normal process. Mass extinction is not, and please focus on the hypothesis -that the dominant species is causing mass extinction. Also, please note that there is more than one cause for mass extinction, if one would like to pretend that climate change is not happening and/or humans aren't contributing to CC.

    OK class, can we name another cause for mass extinction? [/QUOT

    We can't say that mass extinction is not normal. They have happened before, always due to change that some species can't adapt to. Mass extinctions are the main reason that 99% of all species that have ever existed are now gone.

    Are we humans capable of preventing the changes and extinctions that have been going on for hundreds of millions of years? It seems like that is where we are trying to get to. I find that idea quite unsettling.

    Those who claim that we can, and should control earths natural processes are really aiming to control US - on a much more heavy handed level than we already are. The strategy, obviously, is to blame us for everything bad that happens. There was a terrible hurricane? See? This was your fault. A drought? This is what capitalism did for you. It was a tad too hot this summer? Well, that just means you need to ditch your car and get on a bicycle! Meanwhile, while we hobble our industries with ever more onerous regulations, which encourages them to move to the third world, we are told we need to ship our "wealth" - wherever that is supposed to come from - to the third world so they won't cause the problems that we have supposedly caused and are still causing.

    I don't buy this shit, and I don't think many people do. They may say they do because everybody else is saying it, but when it comes to paying the price most people are not on board. Its all good as long as they think some body else is paying for it. That is never the case. There is no somebody else.

    ?


    • [QUOTE=Brexx;n553806]
      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
      Extinction is part of the normal process. Mass extinction is not, and please focus on the hypothesis -that the dominant species is causing mass extinction. Also, please note that there is more than one cause for mass extinction, if one would like to pretend that climate change is not happening and/or humans aren't contributing to CC.

      OK class, can we name another cause for mass extinction? [/QUOT

      We can't say that mass extinction is not normal. They have happened before, always due to change that some species can't adapt to. Mass extinctions are the main reason that 99% of all species that have ever existed are now gone.

      Are we humans capable of preventing the changes and extinctions that have been going on for hundreds of millions of years? It seems like that is where we are trying to get to. I find that idea quite unsettling.

      Those who claim that we can, and should control earths natural processes are really aiming to control US - on a much more heavy handed level than we already are. The strategy, obviously, is to blame us for everything bad that happens. There was a terrible hurricane? See? This was your fault. A drought? This is what capitalism did for you. It was a tad too hot this summer? Well, that just means you need to ditch your car and get on a bicycle! Meanwhile, while we hobble our industries with ever more onerous regulations, which encourages them to move to the third world, we are told we need to ship our "wealth" - wherever that is supposed to come from - to the third world so they won't cause the problems that we have supposedly caused and are still causing.

      I don't buy this shit, and I don't think many people do. They may say they do because everybody else is saying it, but when it comes to paying the price most people are not on board. Its all good as long as they think some body else is paying for it. That is never the case. There is no somebody else.
      That's a nice summary of an answer to another question, but it misses an answer to the actual challenge: "Name another cause for mass extinction." Hopefully you did better on the multiple choice section. In this case, one (or more) answer to this mass extinction question does involve human activity.

      Sure, the assignment wasn't all that easy to complete, as I discovered by going thru a list of conservative think tank organizations. Some don't even deal with the hypothesis that mass extinction is in slow process, or they might claim it is a complete falsehood to put the brakes on human progress (sounds familiar). But there exist rational conservatives who acknowledge the possibility that large-scale extinction might be in a starting phase, and that human activity contributes to that extinction. Here it is, took me about 10 minutes to find one example:
      But there are more plausible, and documented, stories of landowners preplanning for the arrival of endangered species by rendering land unfit for nonhuman habitation. Owners of Southern pine plantations are thought to be harvesting trees early and before the trees are mature enough to develop cavities that red-cockaded woodpeckers are wont to interpret to be an open house invitation.

      As to whether we even know enough about the state of most species, the answer is clearly not because the science is incomplete and access to much of Americas land is restricted. Various levels of government own over one-half of the nations land mass ...
      https://fedsoc.org/commentary/public...nathan-h-adler

      There. I could paraphrase that information -from a conservative source- and state that there are examples of human activity that attempt (sometimes succeed?) in making a species extinct. They make the "land unfit for nonhuman habitation", which avoids gov't. interference -one that prioritizes a species over a private land owner's right to exploit the land. No climate change involved, but human behavior is direct and clearly present.

      It is a safe assumption that such lack of energy in finding an answer -even one based on your own beliefs- is also behind your assumption that Big Companies go overseas because Gummint regulations are too expensive. The big companies state their reasons for going overseas, and gummint regs are only one of the reasons they leave. They are looking to fill positions that are less expensive, while completing the task. IOW, labor cost for skilled labor is at the top of their list, not gov't. regs. Here's one link:
      http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...re-jobs-2011-1

      ?


      • [QUOTE=radcentr;n553835]
        Originally posted by Brexx View Post
        That's a nice summary of an answer to another question, but it misses an answer to the actual challenge: "Name another cause for mass extinction." Hopefully you did better on the multiple choice section. In this case, one (or more) answer to this mass extinction question does involve human activity.

        Sure, the assignment wasn't all that easy to complete, as I discovered by going thru a list of conservative think tank organizations. Some don't even deal with the hypothesis that mass extinction is in slow process, or they might claim it is a complete falsehood to put the brakes on human progress (sounds familiar). But there exist rational conservatives who acknowledge the possibility that large-scale extinction might be in a starting phase, and that human activity contributes to that extinction. Here it is, took me about 10 minutes to find one example:

        https://fedsoc.org/commentary/public...nathan-h-adler

        There. I could paraphrase that information -from a conservative source- and state that there are examples of human activity that attempt (sometimes succeed?) in making a species extinct. They make the "land unfit for nonhuman habitation", which avoids gov't. interference -one that prioritizes a species over a private land owner's right to exploit the land. No climate change involved, but human behavior is direct and clearly present.

        It is a safe assumption that such lack of energy in finding an answer -even one based on your own beliefs- is also behind your assumption that Big Companies go overseas because Gummint regulations are too expensive. The big companies state their reasons for going overseas, and gummint regs are only one of the reasons they leave. They are looking to fill positions that are less expensive, while completing the task. IOW, labor cost for skilled labor is at the top of their list, not gov't. regs. Here's one link:
        http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...re-jobs-2011-1
        On the positive side of human extinction. No more excessive government regulation and best of all no new taxes read my lips. These are compelling reasons every republican to strive for extinction.

        ?


        • [QUOTE=radcentr;n553835]
          Originally posted by Brexx View Post
          That's a nice summary of an answer to another question, but it misses an answer to the actual challenge: "Name another cause for mass extinction." Hopefully you did better on the multiple choice section. In this case, one (or more) answer to this mass extinction question does involve human activity.

          Sure, the assignment wasn't all that easy to complete, as I discovered by going thru a list of conservative think tank organizations. Some don't even deal with the hypothesis that mass extinction is in slow process, or they might claim it is a complete falsehood to put the brakes on human progress (sounds familiar). But there exist rational conservatives who acknowledge the possibility that large-scale extinction might be in a starting phase, and that human activity contributes to that extinction. Here it is, took me about 10 minutes to find one example:

          https://fedsoc.org/commentary/public...nathan-h-adler

          There. I could paraphrase that information -from a conservative source- and state that there are examples of human activity that attempt (sometimes succeed?) in making a species extinct. They make the "land unfit for nonhuman habitation", which avoids gov't. interference -one that prioritizes a species over a private land owner's right to exploit the land. No climate change involved, but human behavior is direct and clearly present.

          It is a safe assumption that such lack of energy in finding an answer -even one based on your own beliefs- is also behind your assumption that Big Companies go overseas because Gummint regulations are too expensive. The big companies state their reasons for going overseas, and gummint regs are only one of the reasons they leave. They are looking to fill positions that are less expensive, while completing the task. IOW, labor cost for skilled labor is at the top of their list, not gov't. regs. Here's one link:
          http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...re-jobs-2011-1
          I already stated what mass extinctions are caused by - change that many species cannot adapt to. There are probably other causes like viruses.

          Show me a mass extinction that is happening today and I will give you a cause for it. Could human activity be a contributing factor? Of course. What do you want to do about it? Apparently you would like to see a few billion humans disappear. If we go that route we could see ourselves joining the 99% of species who no longer exist.

          ?


          • [QUOTE=redrover;n553839]
            Originally posted by radcentr View Post
            On the positive side of human extinction. No more excessive government regulation and best of all no new taxes read my lips. These are compelling reasons every republican to strive for extinction.
            It has been said that we should get rid of the environment because it takes up too much room and is too hard to keep clean. It wasn't said by a republican. It came from a comedian - you know, those guys that you on the left get your news from.

            ?


            • [QUOTE=Brexx;n553846]
              Originally posted by redrover View Post

              It has been said that we should get rid of the environment because it takes up too much room and is too hard to keep clean. It wasn't said by a republican. It came from a comedian - you know, those guys that you on the left get your news from.
              Now that you republicans have concluded that rising sea levels is being caused by rocks falling into the ocean. What do we do next? Have a moment of silence for the late great human race? Or we could take the Trump approach. "we'll see what happens."

              ?


              • [QUOTE=redrover;n553873]
                Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                Now that you republicans have concluded that rising sea levels is being caused by rocks falling into the ocean. What do we do next? Have a moment of silence for the late great human race? Or we could take the Trump approach. "we'll see what happens."
                I vote for see what happens rather than spending trillions trying to stop a problem that may not even exist, and if it does exist we can't stop it anyway.

                ?


                • Rather than quote anyone with the wrong handle attached, I'll reply to the claim that we'll go extinct if we don't have Rilly Big Companies employing almost everyone in developed countries, with everyone doing their duty of multiplying over the carrying capacity of a diverse biology on the only planet we'll know for the next 2 or 3 hundred years:

                  -We are employed mostly by various portions of an open market, which is comprised of at least 4 sectors: Capitalists. Private for profit. Private sustainable (for profit or break-even, depending on hard work and economic health). Private non-profit (by design and objective). Finally, government. Multi-national (Rilly Big) capitalist companies already employ a minority of the US labor force. In short, that ship has sailed, Brexx. Your GOP overlords want you to believe otherwise, since they need your vote (among others), to eventually jump from their public service job to a Rilly Big company job that pays a Rilly Big Paycheck. You could have done your homework (along with other fans of conservative politics), and voted only for politicians who support everyone except Rilly Big Companies that employ mostly non-US citizens. The Rilly Bigs get a place in line, but they're in the back, not the front of the gummint support line. Would have put us libs on the endangered species by now, had the righties opened their eyes to what's best practice, as opposed to the fairy tales told by their politicians.

                  Speaking of endangered species, let's look at "mass extinction" as a 'political' tool. Truth is, that part of biological science is based on rather conservative principles. The periods in between mass extinctions cover most of our planet's biological history, and they were periods that saw the most prosperity (of resources) and stability (access to resources for the greatest number of species, including most critters and plants in the "food chain"). Prosperity and stability, two cornerstones in modern conservative political philosophy.

                  OTOH, claiming that we don't have to worry about human influence on mass extinction is worse than a drug-addled fraternity member going on his last rampage, with the claim that the university rules and officials are "harshing his buzz", and "a little fun never hurt anyone". That person isn't going to prosper (unless his filthy-rich dad bails him out), and he is unstable (regardless of what dad claims). Keeping one's resource base intact, using various strategies, will avoid extinction of other species as well as our own. Reducing our numbers to a manageable level (could be 20,000 or 2 billion) is a conservative strategy, not a liberal or libertine strategy. Conserving our use of resources to maintain a biologically diverse environment is also a long-term conservative strategy, which also includes the survival chances of capitalism. In short, Mass Extinction=Bad, Wide Biological Resource base=Good. Don't listen to a politician who claims species diversity isn't important to the success of a for-profit economy, Brexx. If he really believes that, one should assume he is shooting heroin or doing other hard drugs.

                  ?


                  • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    Rather than quote anyone with the wrong handle attached, I'll reply to the claim that we'll go extinct if we don't have Rilly Big Companies employing almost everyone in developed countries, with everyone doing their duty of multiplying over the carrying capacity of a diverse biology on the only planet we'll know for the next 2 or 3 hundred years:

                    -We are employed mostly by various portions of an open market, which is comprised of at least 4 sectors: Capitalists. Private for profit. Private sustainable (for profit or break-even, depending on hard work and economic health). Private non-profit (by design and objective). Finally, government. Multi-national (Rilly Big) capitalist companies already employ a minority of the US labor force. In short, that ship has sailed, Brexx. Your GOP overlords want you to believe otherwise, since they need your vote (among others), to eventually jump from their public service job to a Rilly Big company job that pays a Rilly Big Paycheck. You could have done your homework (along with other fans of conservative politics), and voted only for politicians who support everyone except Rilly Big Companies that employ mostly non-US citizens. The Rilly Bigs get a place in line, but they're in the back, not the front of the gummint support line. Would have put us libs on the endangered species by now, had the righties opened their eyes to what's best practice, as opposed to the fairy tales told by their politicians.

                    Speaking of endangered species, let's look at "mass extinction" as a 'political' tool. Truth is, that part of biological science is based on rather conservative principles. The periods in between mass extinctions cover most of our planet's biological history, and they were periods that saw the most prosperity (of resources) and stability (access to resources for the greatest number of species, including most critters and plants in the "food chain"). Prosperity and stability, two cornerstones in modern conservative political philosophy.

                    OTOH, claiming that we don't have to worry about human influence on mass extinction is worse than a drug-addled fraternity member going on his last rampage, with the claim that the university rules and officials are "harshing his buzz", and "a little fun never hurt anyone". That person isn't going to prosper (unless his filthy-rich dad bails him out), and he is unstable (regardless of what dad claims). Keeping one's resource base intact, using various strategies, will avoid extinction of other species as well as our own. Reducing our numbers to a manageable level (could be 20,000 or 2 billion) is a conservative strategy, not a liberal or libertine strategy. Conserving our use of resources to maintain a biologically diverse environment is also a long-term conservative strategy, which also includes the survival chances of capitalism. In short, Mass Extinction=Bad, Wide Biological Resource base=Good. Don't listen to a politician who claims species diversity isn't important to the success of a for-profit economy, Brexx. If he really believes that, one should assume he is shooting heroin or doing other hard drugs.
                    I don't know that it's costing trillions to study climate change. I don't remember conservatives of the past being this passive. Let's just stick our heads into the sand we can't do anything about it anyway very defeatist. I'm just happy the conservatives in England take that attitude in 1940 when it looked like the Nazis had them beaten.

                    ?


                    • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                      Rather than quote anyone with the wrong handle attached, I'll reply to the claim that we'll go extinct if we don't have Rilly Big Companies employing almost everyone in developed countries, with everyone doing their duty of multiplying over the carrying capacity of a diverse biology on the only planet we'll know for the next 2 or 3 hundred years:

                      -We are employed mostly by various portions of an open market, which is comprised of at least 4 sectors: Capitalists. Private for profit. Private sustainable (for profit or break-even, depending on hard work and economic health). Private non-profit (by design and objective). Finally, government. Multi-national (Rilly Big) capitalist companies already employ a minority of the US labor force. In short, that ship has sailed, Brexx. Your GOP overlords want you to believe otherwise, since they need your vote (among others), to eventually jump from their public service job to a Rilly Big company job that pays a Rilly Big Paycheck. You could have done your homework (along with other fans of conservative politics), and voted only for politicians who support everyone except Rilly Big Companies that employ mostly non-US citizens. The Rilly Bigs get a place in line, but they're in the back, not the front of the gummint support line. Would have put us libs on the endangered species by now, had the righties opened their eyes to what's best practice, as opposed to the fairy tales told by their politicians.

                      Speaking of endangered species, let's look at "mass extinction" as a 'political' tool. Truth is, that part of biological science is based on rather conservative principles. The periods in between mass extinctions cover most of our planet's biological history, and they were periods that saw the most prosperity (of resources) and stability (access to resources for the greatest number of species, including most critters and plants in the "food chain"). Prosperity and stability, two cornerstones in modern conservative political philosophy.

                      OTOH, claiming that we don't have to worry about human influence on mass extinction is worse than a drug-addled fraternity member going on his last rampage, with the claim that the university rules and officials are "harshing his buzz", and "a little fun never hurt anyone". That person isn't going to prosper (unless his filthy-rich dad bails him out), and he is unstable (regardless of what dad claims). Keeping one's resource base intact, using various strategies, will avoid extinction of other species as well as our own. Reducing our numbers to a manageable level (could be 20,000 or 2 billion) is a conservative strategy, not a liberal or libertine strategy. Conserving our use of resources to maintain a biologically diverse environment is also a long-term conservative strategy, which also includes the survival chances of capitalism. In short, Mass Extinction=Bad, Wide Biological Resource base=Good. Don't listen to a politician who claims species diversity isn't important to the success of a for-profit economy, Brexx. If he really believes that, one should assume he is shooting heroin or doing other hard drugs.
                      I can see why you didn't quote me with this, although it is clearly directed at me. Its nothing but a big STRAW MAN. I never made the claim that you claim "somebody" made.

                      I know you are stuck on this idea that human population needs to be reduced drastically, but you are oblivious to the enormous problems associated with that. And the need to do it is not evident.

                      All countries that have a below replacement birth rate have a big problem with it. All of them that I am aware of, with the exception of Japan, are importing people to make up for the people they are not creating themselves. A lot of people talk a good line about population reduction and what a good thing it would be for the "planet", but nobody wants to endure the pain of actually doing it. In fact they would rather give their country away to foreigners from a culture totally incompatible with their own. Why do you think Merkel did all that arm waving to get a million Muslims - who hate western culture - to come to Germany? It was because Germany has a labor shortage. Why would a country like Sweden bring in a bunch of people from Africa and all the problems that come with them? Because they would rather deal with that than deal with the problems of a dwindling population.

                      You have you vague theories about how growth is bad and shrinkage would be good, and how it could be handled, but examples on the ground are non existent.

                      If you believe in population reduction would you vote for someone who is advocating an end to all immigration? No of course you wouldn't. You are not even against illegal immigrants. So who do you think should lead this population reduction idea that you favor? You might think China would be a good place to start with 1.3 billion people, but they are ditching their birth control policy. Why? Because they can see a looming worker shortage.

                      While you see growth as a bad thing I see a lot of need for growth around the world. Not necessarily a growth in human population, but certainly a growth in living standards, which means a growth in industrial activity, agriculture, and generally everything that makes people's lives better, and that growth is happening due to the spread of capitalism which you and your ilk see as the ultimate evil.

                      As for extinction of species, show me a mass extinction that humans are responsible for. If some animal in Africa was hunted to extinction that is unfortunate, but I don't consider it to be a world shattering event.

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                        I can see why you didn't quote me with this, although it is clearly directed at me. Its nothing but a big STRAW MAN. I never made the claim that you claim "somebody" made.

                        I know you are stuck on this idea that human population needs to be reduced drastically, but you are oblivious to the enormous problems associated with that. And the need to do it is not evident.

                        All countries that have a below replacement birth rate have a big problem with it. All of them that I am aware of, with the exception of Japan, are importing people to make up for the people they are not creating themselves. A lot of people talk a good line about population reduction and what a good thing it would be for the "planet", but nobody wants to endure the pain of actually doing it. In fact they would rather give their country away to foreigners from a culture totally incompatible with their own. Why do you think Merkel did all that arm waving to get a million Muslims - who hate western culture - to come to Germany? It was because Germany has a labor shortage. Why would a country like Sweden bring in a bunch of people from Africa and all the problems that come with them? Because they would rather deal with that than deal with the problems of a dwindling population.

                        You have you vague theories about how growth is bad and shrinkage would be good, and how it could be handled, but examples on the ground are non existent.

                        If you believe in population reduction would you vote for someone who is advocating an end to all immigration? No of course you wouldn't. You are not even against illegal immigrants. So who do you think should lead this population reduction idea that you favor? You might think China would be a good place to start with 1.3 billion people, but they are ditching their birth control policy. Why? Because they can see a looming worker shortage.

                        While you see growth as a bad thing I see a lot of need for growth around the world. Not necessarily a growth in human population, but certainly a growth in living standards, which means a growth in industrial activity, agriculture, and generally everything that makes people's lives better, and that growth is happening due to the spread of capitalism which you and your ilk see as the ultimate evil.

                        As for extinction of species, show me a mass extinction that humans are responsible for. If some animal in Africa was hunted to extinction that is unfortunate, but I don't consider it to be a world shattering event.
                        Let's set aside the ignorance of biology (diversity of resources) for a minute. Population reduction can be handled, but neither side -left or right- wants to recognize the challenge (or if you prefer, "problem"). If you look back on your post, you'll see how most people handle the challenge. First, claim that reduction is a disaster. Then, complain about the dysfunctional policy that countries employ to delay the collapse in their labor supply. Finally, make an observation about countries that are barely in the "developed" category; their populations are also poised to start reduction.

                        In order for a population to expand, they need resources to do just that. You pointed to a solution, which is likely being refined in Japan: They continue to enjoy a growth in "material" living standards, but will need to find resources for portions of their population that didn't receive support before. They don't need more money What is the "new resource" base for Japan's future: Time and social support, along with geopolitical stability. Link:
                        The government is also increasingly attempting to tap into the potential of the female workforce, although a sharp shortage of childcare places continues to prevent many women from returning to work after having children.
                        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...nk-third-2065/
                        Economic and political leadership is also looking at many other solutions, like robotics and artificial intelligence, and will eventually accept a reduction in work hours while maintaining or raising the median income. That last part might go counter to some established points of Japanese work ethic (more work hours=more prestige), but let's face it: Having more family time means working fewer hours, among other things that take up our time. You admit the point in your post, "Not necessarily a growth in human population, but certainly a growth in living standards". You have arrived, Brexx. Human population can decline and continue to prosper -at the same time. If gov't, employer, social and personal conduct make the decline part of a plan, population can recover to replacement levels because we arrive at a point that resources -for all species- are stable or increasing. That is part of our human capacity or will; we have proven we can master our material existence (food, shelter, clothing, tools). The next step is to master the intangibles, like time, social support (more than family), natural and political stability.

                        ?


                        • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                          Let's set aside the ignorance of biology (diversity of resources) for a minute. Population reduction can be handled, but neither side -left or right- wants to recognize the challenge (or if you prefer, "problem"). If you look back on your post, you'll see how most people handle the challenge. First, claim that reduction is a disaster. Then, complain about the dysfunctional policy that countries employ to delay the collapse in their labor supply. Finally, make an observation about countries that are barely in the "developed" category; their populations are also poised to start reduction.

                          In order for a population to expand, they need resources to do just that. You pointed to a solution, which is likely being refined in Japan: They continue to enjoy a growth in "material" living standards, but will need to find resources for portions of their population that didn't receive support before. They don't need more money What is the "new resource" base for Japan's future: Time and social support, along with geopolitical stability. Link:

                          https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...nk-third-2065/
                          Economic and political leadership is also looking at many other solutions, like robotics and artificial intelligence, and will eventually accept a reduction in work hours while maintaining or raising the median income. That last part might go counter to some established points of Japanese work ethic (more work hours=more prestige), but let's face it: Having more family time means working fewer hours, among other things that take up our time. You admit the point in your post, "Not necessarily a growth in human population, but certainly a growth in living standards". You have arrived, Brexx. Human population can decline and continue to prosper -at the same time. If gov't, employer, social and personal conduct make the decline part of a plan, population can recover to replacement levels because we arrive at a point that resources -for all species- are stable or increasing. That is part of our human capacity or will; we have proven we can master our material existence (food, shelter, clothing, tools). The next step is to master the intangibles, like time, social support (more than family), natural and political stability.
                          There is no evidence that that statement is true. Why do you think Japan is trying to find ways to slow down and stop their population decline? Why is China taking measures now to avoid population decline? Why are all countries with below replacement birth rates importing people to keep their populations from declining? Are all these countries just stupid?

                          The problem with having robots and AI do everything is that they don't earn a salary, they don't consume anything except electricity, and they don't pay taxes. So where is the money going to come from to support all the people who are now doing nothing, or doing government paid jobs? Tax the hell out of corporations? How do you keep them in the country if you do that? And what if this became a world wide thing? Japan is still doing well because there is still a growing demand for the stuff they make. But if population shrinkage and automation become world wide that demand is going to shrink as well. Then where is the money going to come from to support all those old and unemployed people?

                          I don't think its a good idea to continually increase the population, but a shrinking population is a serious problem. As we see with Japan, once it starts its very hard to stop or even slow down.



                          ?


                          • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                            There is no evidence that that statement is true. Why do you think Japan is trying to find ways to slow down and stop their population decline? Why is China taking measures now to avoid population decline? Why are all countries with below replacement birth rates importing people to keep their populations from declining? Are all these countries just stupid?

                            The problem with having robots and AI do everything is that they don't earn a salary, they don't consume anything except electricity, and they don't pay taxes. So where is the money going to come from to support all the people who are now doing nothing, or doing government paid jobs? Tax the hell out of corporations? How do you keep them in the country if you do that? And what if this became a world wide thing? Japan is still doing well because there is still a growing demand for the stuff they make. But if population shrinkage and automation become world wide that demand is going to shrink as well. Then where is the money going to come from to support all those old and unemployed people?

                            I don't think its a good idea to continually increase the population, but a shrinking population is a serious problem. As we see with Japan, once it starts its very hard to stop or even slow down.


                            Have you thought about why leaders in most all countries believe a declining population means economic and social failure? Because they still believe we cannot change history; if declining populations in our history were always associated with some kind of disaster (disease, destruction of environment, etc.), then it must always mean disaster will always be associated with a declining population.

                            Our understanding of variation in population numbers is undeveloped, if we are that certain our population will only decline because of a disaster, or that such decline will cause disaster. It is a lack of understanding of our history, Brexx. We changed historical trends that were previously set in stone numerous times. From our origins as a "council of elders", taken over by monarchies or other types of authoritarian governments, which were the rule for thousands of years. Any exception to that rule of "divine authority" was short-lived, a sham, and usually both. Greek democracy lasted a couple hundred years, still allowed for indentured servitude (slavery) and genetic exclusion from voting rights (women). Rome's example was more depressing. It seemed that civilization could only develop with royalty leading the way. Now, we are entering into our 3rd century of representative democracy, the trend is clearly going against the despots around the world. Was Malthus right, that populations would always outstrip our food supply? No, but that was the rule up to the day that Malthus developed his hypothesis. That large scale war would always be with the human race? True, until the atom bomb was invented (and implied direct targeting of military and political leadership).

                            If humans once believed that certain things would always remain the same -monarchies, starvation, war, etc, but were later proven wrong... What does that say about our belief that declining population numbers always mean disaster -even if we control and plan that decline? We controlled our political leaders, our food supply, even large-scale warfare, among other bad things. We did that through planning and putting controls in place.

                            ?


                            • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                              Have you thought about why leaders in most all countries believe a declining population means economic and social failure? Because they still believe we cannot change history; if declining populations in our history were always associated with some kind of disaster (disease, destruction of environment, etc.), then it must always mean disaster will always be associated with a declining population.

                              Our understanding of variation in population numbers is undeveloped, if we are that certain our population will only decline because of a disaster, or that such decline will cause disaster. It is a lack of understanding of our history, Brexx. We changed historical trends that were previously set in stone numerous times. From our origins as a "council of elders", taken over by monarchies or other types of authoritarian governments, which were the rule for thousands of years. Any exception to that rule of "divine authority" was short-lived, a sham, and usually both. Greek democracy lasted a couple hundred years, still allowed for indentured servitude (slavery) and genetic exclusion from voting rights (women). Rome's example was more depressing. It seemed that civilization could only develop with royalty leading the way. Now, we are entering into our 3rd century of representative democracy, the trend is clearly going against the despots around the world. Was Malthus right, that populations would always outstrip our food supply? No, but that was the rule up to the day that Malthus developed his hypothesis. That large scale war would always be with the human race? True, until the atom bomb was invented (and implied direct targeting of military and political leadership).

                              If humans once believed that certain things would always remain the same -monarchies, starvation, war, etc, but were later proven wrong... What does that say about our belief that declining population numbers always mean disaster -even if we control and plan that decline? We controlled our political leaders, our food supply, even large-scale warfare, among other bad things. We did that through planning and putting controls in place.
                              I would like to see this dream of yours come true, that is population decline and continued prosperity at the same time. So far we see no sign of it. The US could easily create a slow population decline by ending immigration. A slow decline would probably not be too painful, at least not at first. But, as is the case with most developed nations a shrinking work force and a growing population of retirees is a problem. It means greater demand on government services while the economy, and thus the tax revenues shrink. Most developed countries, like the US, are up to their ears in debt. At some point it will become impossible to squeeze enough taxes out of a shrinking economy to service these massive debts.

                              I hope this solution that you believe exists is discovered and implemented soon. We have enough people and so does Europe. It won't be good news for poor countries. The developed world won't need them anymore.

                              ?


                              • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                                I would like to see this dream of yours come true, that is population decline and continued prosperity at the same time. So far we see no sign of it. The US could easily create a slow population decline by ending immigration. A slow decline would probably not be too painful, at least not at first. But, as is the case with most developed nations a shrinking work force and a growing population of retirees is a problem. It means greater demand on government services while the economy, and thus the tax revenues shrink. Most developed countries, like the US, are up to their ears in debt. At some point it will become impossible to squeeze enough taxes out of a shrinking economy to service these massive debts.

                                I hope this solution that you believe exists is discovered and implemented soon. We have enough people and so does Europe. It won't be good news for poor countries. The developed world won't need them anymore.
                                There will probably be many wars as people flee areas that can no longer sustain life moving into areas where they can find resources.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X