Stupid World

[Ocean1]

And what happens when you lose your job and/or end up in a situation where you can't afford them eh bright eyes?

You didn't bother looking up escrow, did you?

[mashman]

You didn't bother looking up escrow, did you?

Don't need to as I know what it is. Money isn't everything.

[bogan]

Why would it need to be one or the other? You offer the alternative... either fix yourself after 2 kids or we'll end up in a position where you get fixed. My view is fluid and where one solution isn't working, another will need to be tried (potentially slippery slope)... even Oceans contraceptive in the water as a last resort if need be.

Completely agree with you... apart from the, it has to with population growth bit. It only has to if they system under which you are living requires it to. A money free world would go a long way towards that, if not further than you imagine. No need for paper to be used i.e. no lawyers documents, bus tickets, advertising pamphlets etc... leaving more wood for building. Building business hubs near populated areas: less people driving to work i.e. less fuel usage/reliance on oil, healthier population so less drag on health service, less road maintenance. Hermetically sealing houses, using LED's etc... i.e. using less electricity to heat/light a house. Producing "goods" that last 50 years (or more) and not 10 i.e. producing less but shit lasts longer. Using renewable energy sources. The list is nearly endless and we could end up in a position where we've become resource efficient over so many years that the population has grown and we consume less in total than we do today. Ya never know, it may even see us into an age where we are able to get off this rock without resorting to culling as the population as the best solution, coz it isn't.

Indeed, if one isn't working then freedoms must be curbed lest they impinge of the freedoms of others. I'm simply talking about the logical conclusion of maintaing such freedoms, while you are a bit more focused on maintaining them, and less on the consequences.

Well if you're on the topic of magic, just get your wizards to send excess population to colony planets. It is funny though, how you see procreation as a right, yet are willing to remove peoples right to choose how they live their lives.

[jonbuoy]

So, you would prefer to see everyone you know enjoy the right to breed, so their children live in overcrowding, their grandchildren struggle to find enough food, their great grandchilderen see the worlds ecosystem collapse, and their great great grandchilderen see the end of humanity itself? Since we don't look like getting off this rock anytime soon, it seems population growth is going to need to be curbed if we want our great grandchilderen to have the quality of life we enjoy.

The big problem might be that we waste so many resources that we can't build the technology we need to leave this planet. Although it's hard to imagine getting anywhere without fusion power and fusion power means unlimited energy which pretty much means you can make anything you don't have - or something like that....

[bogan]

The big problem might be that we waste so many resources that we can't build the technology we need to leave this planet. Although it's hard to imagine getting anywhere without fusion power and fusion power means unlimited energy which pretty much means you can make anything you don't have - or something like that....

Yeh, tech is looking like the option we're picking, more intensive farming etc. But we are well back in the space game, going to take a series of major scientific breakthroughs for that to become viable before pop control becomes a necessity.

[mashman]

Indeed, if one isn't working then freedoms must be curbed lest they impinge of the freedoms of others. I'm simply talking about the logical conclusion of maintaing such freedoms, while you are a bit more focused on maintaining them, and less on the consequences.

Well if you're on the topic of magic, just get your wizards to send excess population to colony planets. It is funny though, how you see procreation as a right, yet are willing to remove peoples right to choose how they live their lives.

It's certainly a logical conclusion under the current economic structure, not an absolute given, but probably the most likely outcome. I'm more focussed on a holistic approach that has freedom at its core, which, oddly enough, does not mean that the consequences haven't been considered (contrary to what you perceive)... evidenced by the 2 kid "rule". Do I realise the dichotomy of that? of course I do. How do I reconcile that? very easily as I am not bound to a philosophy or ideology that dictates that freedom is an absolute and that there are indeed situations where common sense "rules" will be required.

How am I willing to remove a persons right to choose how they live their lives?

Question: Given what you know, would you voluntarily limit yourself to 2 children to help manage the population?

[mashman]

The big problem might be that we waste so many resources that we can't build the technology we need to leave this planet. Although it's hard to imagine getting anywhere without fusion power and fusion power means unlimited energy which pretty much means you can make anything you don't have - or something like that....

Yeh, tech is looking like the option we're picking, more intensive farming etc. But we are well back in the space game, going to take a series of major scientific breakthroughs for that to become viable before pop control becomes a necessity.

Lack of funding. Too many smart people in the wrong jobs (because there are a limited number of "NASA" type jobs). Ignoring issues til they're so dire that they divert resources (primarily money) away from other just as important "tasks" (like renewable energy sources losing nearly 1/3 of their funding since the GFC) etc... and you wonder why I want rid of the financial system.

[Ocean1]

Don't need to as I know what it is.

In which case this:

And what happens when you lose your job and/or end up in a situation where you can't afford them eh bright eyes?

was a pretty stupid question wasn't it?

Money isn't everything.

Obviously. However it's the correct unit to use when discussing whether people can afford to have children or not.

[mashman]

In which case this: was a pretty stupid question wasn't it?

That's why you got the answer that Money wasn't everything... which makes your "observation" pretty fuckin stupid.

Obviously. However it's the correct unit to use when discussing whether people can afford to have children or not.

No it isn't. If you're gonna be a cunt, at least pretend that you're going to do it properly, ya know, as though you had thought through the solution. Why not just use a gun in the first place? Moderately amusing that you think people would work if you removed their right to have kids if they never stood a chance of earning 100k. So measuring it financially is a moronic solution at best... but understandable as that's all you know and are too lazy to do the hard yards to provide a real future for your fellow planet dwellers. But as long as you're alright eh Jack

[Ocean1]

You could use a hydrogen powered lawnmower engine to purify your water.

And nobody bit eh?

How disappointing.

[bogan]

It's certainly a logical conclusion under the current economic structure, not an absolute given, but probably the most likely outcome. I'm more focussed on a holistic approach that has freedom at its core, which, oddly enough, does not mean that the consequences haven't been considered (contrary to what you perceive)... evidenced by the 2 kid "rule". Do I realise the dichotomy of that? of course I do. How do I reconcile that? very easily as I am not bound to a philosophy or ideology that dictates that freedom is an absolute and that there are indeed situations where common sense "rules" will be required.

How am I willing to remove a persons right to choose how they live their lives?

Question: Given what you know, would you voluntarily limit yourself to 2 children to help manage the population?

By saying they have to own gear that'll last em 50 years, you've seen how people like to have the latest stuff, 1 year is too old, let alone 50!

And nobody bit eh?

How disappointing.

My face is still palmed from the last time I think...

[mashman]

And nobody bit eh?

How disappointing.

Wasn't looking for a bite, just wry observation.

So no.

[mashman]

By saying they have to own gear that'll last em 50 years, you've seen how people like to have the latest stuff, 1 year is too old, let alone 50!

I didn't say that they had to own gear for 50 years... although I don't know many people who buy the latest washing machine, fridge, freezer, dishwasher, tap fittings, light fittings, in home entertainment system, laptop etc... every year. I do piss myself laughin when I ask people, that have followed phones from Gen 1 - Gen X, what's new on the phone that they actually use and it's exactly the same stuff that a shitty 5 year old phone can achieve.

[bogan]

I didn't say that they had to own gear for 50 years... although I don't know many people who buy the latest washing machine, fridge, freezer, dishwasher, tap fittings, light fittings, in home entertainment system, laptop etc... every year. I do piss myself laughin when I ask people, that have followed phones from Gen 1 - Gen X, what's new on the phone that they actually use and it's exactly the same stuff that a shitty 5 year old phone can achieve.

So, will they still be allowed to go gen+1 on phones etc every year?

[mashman]

So, will they still be allowed to go gen+1 on phones etc every year?

I assume you're talking from a NOW perspective? If so, other than it not being my decision and no decision having been made on such things, I'll give you my version...

IF industry has decided to keep producing in such quantities that devices can be made available for public "ownership", then yes. IF industry has decided not to keep producing in such quantities that devices can be made available for public "ownership", then no. It all boils down to resource usage etc... who knows, praps we'll be able to update components over the net and a new device won't be needed, but new functionality will be made available.