> On 5/11/2010 3:46 PM, Christoph Reuss wrote:
> > You have advocated (with URL) population reduction down to 100 Million
> > globally to save the climate (i.e. within a couple of decades)._Logic
> > mandates that this REQUIRES termination/liquidation -- in large numbers._
>
> If you bothered to read the website, it explains precisely how OCPF (one
> child per family -max) would do this.
Do the math: Even if everyone on the whole planet would immediately obey
the 1-child rule, it would take more than __250 years__ to come down to 100
Million people worldwide. The climate, ecosystem etc. would be trashed
long before that. Worse, you have to take into account that the per-capita
eco-footprints in the developing world would increase even more with a
1-child policy. And of course, worldwide obedience to 1-child is total
wishful thinking. Deposing the Preds is a child's play by comparison.
Fact is, not even you believe that the global 1-child policy would work --
that's why you talk of "selection" (=the _opposite_ of 1-child-for-all)...
> Again you put words in my mouth without researching the subject of the
> website.
I do my own research instead of blindly believing flat-earthers' scriptures.
(The latter got the world into the mess we're in! Also in economics.)
And I wrote "Logic mandates that ...", not "You said that ...".
> > Forced population reduction MAXimizes
> > violent conflict.
>
> Another fabrication with no experience with the subject. Incentives to
> NOT breed are not force. Carrots, not sticks.
But what do you do with those who don't bite the carrot? You give them the
stick --> forced population reduction! The stick provokes counter-violence
--> violent conflict.
> > Above, you expressed certainty again...
>
> For me to express certainty, I would have to use words like I quoted you
> doing several times like I know... not opinion...... I did not do that.
Saying "the coming cull/selection" and "Natural Selection is perpetual" does
not contain the word opinion -- it expresses a certainty. But what's even
more important is the question of who we blame for it -- the big Predators
OR their victims (the masses to be culled). Unless this can be assessed
objectively (but I think it can), it may depend on which side we're on.
> I expressly stated ALL ALONG that my willingness to bet on my opinions
> was based on probabilities as I judged them.
Then why don't you bet on the 4 horsemen reducing humanity to 100M unless
we do it (fast)? If it's a probability (not certainty), then you bet on it,
right?
> I like elegant technologies and will read the book. But I will bet that
> over the next 20 years (my expected lifetime) mortality rates will rise,
> average global health will decline, biodiversity will decline, pollution
> will increase...
This is trivial, so of course you'll win that bet. (Horoscope trick again!)
The question is why you don't dare to bet on the 4 horsemen culling humanity
down to 100M unless we do it (until 2100, not 2260+). Since you didn't
answer this question the last 2 times already, I have to conclude that this
is a Taboo for you, so it's only consistent that you don't dare to publically
bet on longbets.org about this.
In hindsight, I realize that your initial statement ("the coming cull")
was made in a private email to Keith, from which he had quoted this part
on the FW list. So let's call it an accident among stone-age nostalgics
and finally leave the Taboo to rest in peace. Thanks to Keith for spilling
the beans, anyway. ;-)
> This is my absolute last response to you.
I regret that I have wasted so much time trying to talk about a Taboo.
The attempt was doomed to fail... (pun!)
Chris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword
"igve".
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
