Is climate change, a major concern for Canadians ....

[Guest PPC2019]

5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Quelle surprise. 

Wants to flee the argument entirely and makes up excuses to do so, knowing he's losing the argument badly. Called it.

No I just don't feel like repeating myself 100 times... 10 or 15 times is enough... I like to respect the mod. Go read what I, and a few others have wrote about overpopulation. There's some compelling arguments.

Edited November 11, 2019 by PPC2019

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

No I just don't feel like repeating myself 100 times... 10 or 15 times is enough... I like to respect the mod. Go read what I, and a few others have wrote about overpopulation. There's some compelling arguments.

I just destroyed them all in this thread and you had no rebuttal, I also destroyed those arguments in those thread too. You don't have any compelling arguments, if you did, you would have made them.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Guest PPC2019]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

I just destroyed them all in this thread and you had no rebuttal. You don't have any compelling arguments, if you did, you would have made them.

I've been threatened online, blackmailed, called a Nazi, have had rumors started about me... Called Hitler caz of my ideas on overpopulation... There's a lot i'm not sharing, and there's a reason I tone it down.

I'm not afraid of debating... i'm addicted to debating... but there is reasons why I avoid some arguments.

[jacee]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

It all sounds good, but I don't agree that's coming anytime soon.  I don't know where you live, but you only have to go into a city to know that it's going to be many, many years before all those vehicles run on electricity, and the electricity comes from renewables.  (Has anyone thought what we are going to do with all the gas powered vehicles, some of which might only be a couple of years old, with only a few K on the engines, when the gasoline suddenly stops?)

And that's just in the west.  The rest of the world will follow when they feel like it. 

How long will it be before everyone in Canada is heating their homes on renewables?  Here in Alberta we are just transitioning from coal to natural gas for our power.  That's probably at least a twenty year plan.  (Guessing there, but probably low)

No problem. Human ingenuity is an amazing thing. 

Renewable energy is more profitable than oil in the instant that we remove about 30% of the subsidies that are the only thing still keeping the oil industry afloat. 

All of the challenges you mention will be quickly addressed, because human beings are incredibly inventive, already ahead of the game.

1) Vehicle retrofitters are already doing good business in some countries: 

https://singularityhub.com/2019/08/05/the-newest-way-to-go-green-retrofit-your-old-car-to-make-it-electric/

2) The billions in federal subsidy money currently propping up the otherwise unprofitable fossil fuel industries can be re-allocated to support all of the retrofits, etc. that will be necessary to switch to electric, including vehicles and home heating.   

3) Current provincial subsidy money can be used to support Alberta and Saskatchewan oil workers through the transition to new industries. 

No one person - like you or me - has to figure out all the details. We all just have to free the market to work as it should, and let human ingenuity and free enterprise fill in the necessities. 

[Guest PPC2019]

13 minutes ago, jacee said:

No problem. Human ingenuity is an amazing thing. 

Renewable energy is more profitable than oil in the instant that we remove about 30% of the subsidies that are the only thing still keeping the oil industry afloat. 

All of the challenges you mention will be quickly addressed, because human beings are incredibly inventive, already ahead of the game.

1) Vehicle retrofitters are already doing good business in some countries: 

https://singularityhub.com/2019/08/05/the-newest-way-to-go-green-retrofit-your-old-car-to-make-it-electric/

2) The billions in federal subsidy money currently propping up the otherwise unprofitable fossil fuel industries can be re-allocated to support all of the retrofits, etc. that will be necessary to switch to electric, including vehicles and home heating.   

3) Current provincial subsidy money can be used to support Alberta and Saskatchewan oil workers through the transition to new industries. 

No one person - like you or me - has to figure out all the details. We all just have to free the market to work as it should, and let human ingenuity and free enterprise fill in the necessities. 

Jacee how are you going to save the planet with electric cars, when the population hits 15 billion. You might stop climate change, but what happens when 500 000 hungry people in Brazil decide to open up the amazon for farming?

What happens to ecosystems when we mine for rare earth minerals to produce batteries?

You got to think beyond carbon emissions and realize there is a whole basket of environmental problems that are about to get a whole lot worse, because the environmentalist are ignoring option B.

Electric cars are still apart of the industrial system, and the environmental can only handle the industrial system if we stop population growth. Then our environmental impacts can be managed without severe over regulation.

The environmentalist are fighting capitalism while ignoring overpopulation. That lead to a lower GDP per capita, extream amounts of debt, and cutbacks to environmental regulations due to lack of funding.

I'm fighting overpopulation so I can defend capitalism. That leads to a higher GDP per capita. A strong economy that can be used to pay down debt, and lots of money leftover to invest in environmental protection.

Edited November 11, 2019 by PPC2019

[Yzermandius19]

The population isn't going to hit 15 billion, not even close. It might not even hit 11 billion by 2100. 

Some people really suck at math.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Guest PPC2019]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The population isn't going to hit 15 billion, not even close. It won't even hit 11 billion by 2100. 

Some people really suck at math.

We don't know exactly... but before you insult me, please tell me how many people joined the planet in the last 13 years? Then tell me if the population growth is slowing fast enough.

Go look it up, give me the number, or quit pretending you know everything.

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, PPC2019 said:

We don't know exactly... but before you insult me, please tell me how many people joined the planet in the last 13 years? Then tell me if the population growth is slowing fast enough.

Go look it up, give me the number, or quit pretending you know everything.

The birth rates are falling, especially in the countries with the highest birth rates, it's a fallacy that the population will continue to rise at the rate it did in the last 13 years. Go look them up if you don't believe me, quit pretending you know everything.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Guest PPC2019]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The birth rates are falling, it's a fallacy that the population will continue to rise at the rate it did in the last 13 years. Go look them up if you don't believe me, quit pretending you know everything.

I said.... Go look up the population back in 2006, and then give me the population in 2019.

Provide those two numbers, or back off.

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

I said.... Go look up the population back in 2006, and then give me the population in 2019.

Provide those two numbers, or back off.

Mexico in 1968 had 6.83 births per woman, and now they are barely above replacement at 2.18 births per woman 50 years later, birth rates change as nations wealth increases, as the third world gets richer, less babies will be born. This is happening in India and has already happened in China. It will happen in Africa too. Birth rates change and your projecting into the future based on higher birth rates that are falling rapidly is leading you to idiotic analysis.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Guest PPC2019]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Mexico in 1968 had nearly 7 kids per woman, and now they are barely above replacement at 2.18 births per woman 50 years later, birth rates change as nations wealth increases, as the third world gets richer, less babies will be born.

I want the worlds population in 2006 and the worlds population in 2019.

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

I want the worlds population in 2006 and the worlds population in 2019.

That's because you want to cherry pick a number then act like from 2019 until 2032 the population will increase at the same rate as did from 2006 to 2019, but that is wrong. The rate of population rising is falling fast and will eventually start shrinking, the world population in nearing a plateau and then a decline, it is not going to increase at current rates until the end of time.

15 billion ain't happening, no matter how many stats you cherry pick to pretend otherwise.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Guest PPC2019]

5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

That's because you want to cherry pick a number then act like from 2019 until 2032 the population will increase at the same rate as did from 2006 to 2019, but that is wrong.

We're not talking talking about the distant past. 2006 to 2019 was moments ago, and you refuse to answer the question.

Edited November 11, 2019 by PPC2019

[Yzermandius19]

19 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

We're not talking talking about the distant, 2006 to 2019 was moments ago, and you refuse to answer the question.

The rate of increase from 2006 to 2019 will not be the rate of increase from 2019 to 2032, the answer to the question is not relevant.

China is already well below replacement rate at 1.62 births per woman, which will mean a declining population. The Indian birth rate is already on 2.33 birth per woman, that's almost replacement. African birth rates are falling rapidly as well and that will accelerate as their wealth increases, this phenomenon will cause a plateau and then decline in world population in the not too distant future.

In 1965 the Indians were having 5.83 births per woman, in 2016 that number is 2.33, In 1965 the Chinese were having 6.4 births per woman, in 2016 that number is 1.62. Your population projections fail to account for falling birth rates.

The reason for population growth isn't births, it's people living longer. The birth rate has been declining the entire population boom and that process is accelerating now that this is over. Once the old people die, the lower than replacement birth rate means declining population numbers.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Guest PPC2019]

21 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The rate of increase from 2006 to 2019 will not be the rate of increase from 2019 to 2032, the answer to the question is not relevant.

I don't think you understand exponential growth... It's possible for birthrates to decline while the population increase accelerates.

Investors understand this concept in day trading.

For example here's what happens when you take $100 and collect 3% interest over the 30 days. You get a difference of $142.

 

When you go for the next 30 days. You get a difference of $346

 

Anyways since you won't answer the question. The world added 1 billion people in the last 13 years, and we're expected to add the next billion in the next 15. So we're expected too have a reduced growth rate by 13% over the between 2019 to 2032. 

This isn't something to get overconfident about.

Demographers expect 4 billion in Africa alone by the end of the century, and it's all cool to them... Plenty of cheap labor to keep the globalists happy, when outsourcing jobs to China becomes a nuisance.

If we had a moral society, we would be doing more to stabilize Africa, but the global elite are keeping them poor for a reason. They're waiting for an overpopulation crisis in Africa to capitalize on it.

Edited November 11, 2019 by PPC2019

[Yzermandius19]

I don't think you get that population growth is not exponential, and you are applying a dynamic that doesn't actually exist. You look at past growth rates and assume they will continue into the future at a similar clip, when that is not the case at all. The best way to stabilize Africa is increased wealth which will result in lower birth rates and less Africans being added than your projections. If there is a problem, it is solving itself. 15 billion ain't happening in the next 100 years, you're being ridiculous.

If birth rates are below replacement and the old people surplus dies off because they can't live forever, that equals less population, not more, and it certainly doesn't result in exponential population growth either. Exponential growth occurs only when birth rates are well above replacement and life expectancy rises rapidly at the same time, your math is just off.

Africa will grow the most sure, but not so much the world can't feed itself, including Africa, due to lack of food or resources. That's not a thing.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Guest PPC2019]

8 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I don't think you get that population growth is not exponential, and you are applying a dynamic that doesn't actually exist. You look at past growth rates and assume they will continue into the future at a similar clip, when that is not the case at all. The best way to stabilize Africa is increased wealth which will result in lower birth rates and less Africans being added that your projections.

Humans have been evolving for millions of years.The world added more people in the last 13 years than the entire population in 1804. A 13% reduction in population growth over the next 13 isn't acceptable.

What we have created is unnatural. We are in uncharted territory, and should lean on the side of caution.

I don't want future generations living under eco tyranny, because we didn't take population growth serious... I actually want less regulations, so can continue to have individual liberty, affordability, and opportunity in the capitalistic system.

The best chances of that happening, is if we keep our numbers down.

 

We already have eco tyranny in Canada, because we blame Alberta for climate change that's caused by overpopulation. When Alberta is responsible for less than 0.3% of the worlds emissions.

Our Marxist universities say, that unless Canada keeps it in the ground... the sky could catch fire due to some methane feedback loop. What happens when future generations feel even more guilty about their impact on the planet, and decide to shut down entire economies?

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by PPC2019

[Yzermandius19]

11 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

Humans have been evolving for millions of years.The world added more people in the last 13 years than the entire population in 1804. A 13% reduction in population growth over the next 13 isn't acceptable.

What we have created is unnatural. We are in uncharted territory, and should lean on the side of caution.

I don't want future generations living under eco tyranny, because we didn't take population growth serious... I actually want less regulations, so can continue to have individual liberty, affordability, and opportunity in the capitalistic system.

The best chances of that happening, is if we keep our numbers down.

 

The reduction in the rate of population increase is accelerating at a rapid pace, eventually the population will plateau and decline. The best chances of not living under eco tyranny is not population control, that is fastest to usher in eco tyranny in fact. The best way to reduce population levels is to increase wealth, while improving transportation and infrastructure, and population will occur naturally without any government intervention.

China overdid it with the disastrous one child policy population control measures, and they will pay the price for doing so, it did not help them. In many nations in the world, having less births will be a detriment, not a boon.

You want to reduce the African population growth, them getting wealthier will do far more to help them than any population control measures you can dream up, just look at India. Once Africa catches up to where India is now, their birth rate will be near replacement as well and there will be no more exponential population growth, even in Africa.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Guest PPC2019]

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The reduction in the rate of population increase is accelerating at a rapid pace, eventually the population will plateau and decline. The best chances of not living under eco tyranny is not population control, that is fastest to usher in eco tyranny in fact. The best way to reduce population levels is to increase wealth, while improving transportation and infrastructure, and it will occur naturally without any government intervention.

It all depends on who implements it. If our conservatives came up with an answer, I think Population can be controlled by moral means. If the wrong people did it, it would by tyranny..

I personally think... We should be helping overpopulate countries have vasectomies... and plan for smaller families.

If we promoted gradual depopulation, and strong economic growth... We wouldn't have to worry about old people and their retirement.

[Yzermandius19]

9 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

It all depends on who implements it. If our conservatives came up with an answer, I think Population can be controlled by moral means. If the wrong people did it, it would by tyranny..

I personally think... We should be helping overpopulate countries have vasectomies... and plan for smaller families.

If we promoted gradual depopulation, and strong economic growth... We wouldn't have to worry about old people and their retirement.

You can't ensure that the right people will be in charge, it is far more likely to end up in the wrong hands, and it will end disastrously, as it has every time it's been tried.

Gradual depopulation is happening as wealth increases, no need for eugenics or centrally planned population control. Depopulation doesn't fuel economic growth, just the opposite. Countries with low economic growth tend to have below replacement birth rates, a smaller generation having to take care of a much larger aging generation is economically burdensome. Gradual depopulation does not lead to less old people, it leads to less young people, unless you go full eugenics and start killing old people before they die of disease or natural causes. If there is a lot of old people and very few young people, that's going to make it harder for the young people to get ahead, which slows down economic growth.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Guest PPC2019]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

You can't ensure that the right people will be in charge, it is far more likely to end up in the wrong hands, and it will end disastrously. Gradual depopulation is happening as wealth increase, no need for eugenics or centrally planned population control.

I think if we actually debated, and put our thinking caps on... There would be less chance of it ended up in the wrong hands.

Bad policy comes from ignorance, and ignorance happens when people are too afraid to debate touchy subjects.

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

I think if we actually debated, and put our thinking caps on... There would be less chance of it ended up in the wrong hands.

Bad policy comes from ignorance, and ignorance happens when people are too afraid to debate touchy subjects.

I think that your faith in debate to change the minds of rubes is misguided, and your faith that it ends up in the right hands is also misguided, apparently you don't know anything about history, because this has been tried before, it never ends up in the right hands.

You are like a communist pretending real communism has never been tried and that's why it fails every single time, no matter how many times it's tried, next time will be the time the right people are in charge and it will lead to utopia. Give it a rest, you're just wrong, your utopian delusions lead directly to a dystopia, learn some history. The solution is not to put that power in the hands of any group, not just pick another group to give that power to and it will all be hunky dory.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Guest PPC2019]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I think that your faith in debate to change the minds of rubes is misguided, and your faith that it ends up in the right hands is also misguided, apparently you don't know anything about history, because this has been tried before, it never ends up in the right hands.

You are like a communist pretending real communism has never been tried and that's why it fails every single time, no matter how many times it's tried, next time will be the time the right people are in charge and it will lead to utopia. Give it a rest, you're just wrong, your utopian delusions lead directly to a dystopia, learn some history.

We already happen population control in the western world... Our universities are teaching transgenderism instead of how to become a responsible parent... How to have a healthy relationship.

Feminism, Pride... overnight divorces. it all breaks down traditional morals and family values.

It's happening covertly weather we like it or not.

I'll take vasectomies over transgender depopulation policy.

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

We already happen population control in the western world... Our universities are teaching transgenderism instead of how to become a responsible parent... How to have a healthy relationship.

Feminism, Pride... overnight divorces. it all breaks down traditional morals and family values.

It's happening covertly weather we like it or not.

I'll take vasectomies over transgender depopulation policy.

I'll take not giving the government control over reproduction, and leave that up to individuals, while letting the prosperity fueled by free market capitalism take care of it. That works infinitely better than your approach and won't result in a dystopia due to utopian wishful thinking that if the right people are just in charge, authoritarianism over reproduction is the way to go, when that has never worked once in the history of humanity and very often lead to disaster.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Guest PPC2019]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I'll take not giving the government control over reproduction, and let the prosperity fueled by free market capitalism take care of it. That works infinitely better than your approach and won't result in a dystopia due to utopian wishful thinking that if the right people are just in charge, authoritarianism over reproduction is the way to go.

I understand what you're say.... I get it... There are a lot of smart people, but they don't end up in government is really stupid.

The thing that makes me the most sad is alienation from nature... Most of the worlds children will never see a beautiful forest. Everything they are exposed to is artificial and fake.

We wen't put on this earth to live in man made prisons made our of concrete.

Edited November 11, 2019 by PPC2019