my now-former close friend

Usually I'm not.

All the journalists, hospitals, first responders, basically everyone is in on it except for you and me.

Not at all. I think all these people (including you and I) are acting in good faith. I don't pretend to know what's going on, perhaps Agenda 2030 which I would have to agree with, because (and I think you know this about me) to put it baldly, the world is way too populous. It's unsustainable. Keep going at this (escalating) rate and life on earth will be extinguished. And it's been clear for decades that people are going to go on making people at a rate that's much scarier than the cv19 infection rate.

Boris Johnson's dad Stanley was correct when he wrote, in 1970, "If the number of new births cannot be reduced, the number of deaths each year must increase un til the net growth of the world's population is cut down to a more manageable number". That's just maths, isn't it?

Candid wrote:...because (and I think you know this about me) to put it baldly, the world is way too populous. It's unsustainable....That's just maths, isn't it?

I do know this, but don't fully understand why you believe that humanity will not adapt.

Cities and farms on the ocean. Impossible? I don't think so.

I think overpopulation and sustainability are less about how many people and more about the type of world we want to live in. It is about quality of life.

I don't see a sudden collapse prompted by a lack of food, water, or other resources anytime soon, e.g. the next 100 years. A massive war could suddenly set us back or disease, but those are not strictly overpopulation issues. Those could happen, and have happened, regardless of population.

Overpopulation (unsustainability) 'doom' predictions have been around for hundreds of years if not longer. While there is plenty of evidence that quality of life will gradually change, there is little evidence of a drastic impending collapse of society.

The term conspiracy theory has become a term of mockery and is used to dismiss any legitimate concerns about things hidden from scrutiny. A theory is just that until you start to collect evidence. To win the lottery is theoretically possible despite the huge odds and remains theoretical until you buy a ticket. Then it becomes a possibility because you could win it. The more tickets you have increases the likelihood of winning. When evidence is produced to support the theory it is shot down by calling it a conspiracy and tin foil hats time. When you see the evidence that questions the official report for 9/11 and the quality if the people presenting it, you realise the power those in charge have to ignore or dismiss it... "Too many people would know" etc etc... only a select few would actually know, the rest would be acting on good faith they were doing their jobs. Snowden informed the world of the power of the NSA and what they were doing.. just one guy, when hundreds must have been involved. The reaction? Bury it, smear him, patriotism and threats to execute him. I'm sceptical about the virus and have for decades said one day we will see a global virus that will reduce the population. Is this it? No, I don't think so... will one happen... with psychopaths running the world, anything wouldn't surprise me.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:Cities and farms on the ocean. Impossible? I don't think so.

When the melting of the polar icecaps gets on a bit further, much of Australia's currently populated areas will be under water. Is that what you envision?

I think overpopulation and sustainability are less about how many people and more about the type of world we want to live in. It is about quality of life.

People need to be housed and fed. This means wholesale destruction of ecosystems and increased uniformity of landscape. According to Sir David Attenborough, we've already gone too far. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-51124318

I was lucky enough to snorkel the Great Barrier Reef in the mid Seventies. The colours, structures and life-forms made this experience better than the best acid trip imaginable. Now many of the world's coral reefs are bleached white, dead, no longer providing either food or shelter for marine species, some of which we hadn't even described and named.

I don't see a sudden collapse prompted by a lack of food, water, or other resources anytime soon

Millions of people are without those things NOW. Rainforests are shrinking, deserts are increasing, species are vanishing... and people are dying for lack of food or clean water or both. I don't know where you've been!

Overpopulation (unsustainability) 'doom' predictions have been around for hundreds of years if not longer.

And let's consider what's happened in the past one hundred years.
a tremendous change occurred with the industrial revolution: whereas it had taken all of human history up to the year 1800 for world population to reach 1 billion, the second billion was achieved in only 130 years (1930), the third billion in 30 years (1960), the fourth billion in 15 years (1974), the fifth billion in 13 years (1987), the sixth billion in 12 years (1999) and the seventh billion in 12 years (2011). During the 20th century alone, the population in the world grew from 1.65 billion to 6 billion. https://www.worldometers.info/

While there is plenty of evidence that quality of life will gradually change, there is little evidence of a drastic impending collapse of society.

Of society? No. The wealthiest will be just fine.

tokeless wrote:I'm sceptical about the virus...

So are a lot of medical professionals!

this Big Pharma debacle is not new. After spending some $16 billion over 30 years to eradicate polio, international health bodies have ‘accidentally’ reintroduced the disease to in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and also Iran, https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/un-forced-admit-gates-funded-vaccine-causing-polio-outbreak-africa
That ought to knock off a few, eh?

You're going to love this, both of you:
http://themillenniumreport.com/2020/10/ ... rld-order/

Candid wrote: I don't know where you've been!

With the exception of Australia, all around the world?

I'm skeptical of your skepticism Candid. Maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist, but I think fear sells. I think media and politics is a nepotistic, corrupt system that is using fear. They push certain narratives that use fear to help favored politicians gain and maintain power.

It is not that I disagree or fail to believe aspects of the links (stories) you provide ref: all the horrible things taking place in the world. It's that I am skeptical about the dystopian, world-ending conclusions drawn.

It is not that I disagree or fail to believe aspects of the links (stories) you provide ref: all the horrible things taking place in the world. It's that I am skeptical about the dystopian, world-ending conclusions drawn.

A dystopian world doesn't have to be the end of the world. As with Orwell's vision in 1984, the world changed and our understanding of the truth, war and control with it, but it didn't end. Those who questioned and didn't conform were the one's punished. The planet has changed and it's ecosystems damaged and yet still the powerful pay for science that denies it. It's a global act of self harm and they will attack those who fight them. The question I often ask is how much money do you need in this life? We have more billionaires yet we have more crisis and poverty. We are close to having trillionaires with people like Bezos but growing inequality. The world is truly mad when you look at it that way. As my mum says, "There are no pockets in a shroud and no shops in heaven"

tokeless wrote:The planet has changed and it's ecosystems damaged and yet still the powerful pay for science that denies it.

Really? If you had to just guess, what do you think is the ratio of papers published on global warming in support of sweeping reforms being necessary versus papers that say global warming is not an issue? 10 to 1, 100 to 1?

So if the powerful are paying for science that denies it, they are not very successful. In fact, anyone that "denies" the impacts of global warming is labeled a "climate change denier" and painted with a Scarlett letter. They find it difficult to publish, it negatively impacts their career, and they are shamed or otherwise ostracized.

Heck, powerful media platforms even censor or place warning labels on content that hints at being skeptical of global warming.

And this is what I find so ironic. On the one hand there exists a tokeless that supports skepticism, but not when it comes to global warming. Then your skepticism is not directed at the powerful majority, paying for science to promote more government control of the planet. No, no, no. In this case, your skepticism is directed at the powerful few, paying for the squeaky voice that risks publishing a single paper out of hundreds that might question global warming.

Don't you find that odd tokeless?

Or am I wrong? Is it the other way around? Is that the case that scientists publishing papers about global warming are the ones being demoted, ostracized, and metaphorically burned at the stake, while those in power publish papers against global warming represent the majority?

Here is but one link. Is NASA lying to me? NASA claims that 97% of scientists agree there is man-made global warming.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Who has funded this 97% tokeless? The poor? The common man?

So if the powerful are paying for science that denies it, they are not very successful. In fact, anyone that "denies" the impacts of global warming is labeled a "climate change denier" and painted with a Scarlett letter. They find it difficult to publish, it negatively impacts their career, and they are shamed or otherwise ostracized.

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-w ... ndustries/


Heck, powerful media platforms even censor or place warning labels on content that hints at being skeptical of global warming

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... port-finds.
For balance, Facebook has now made efforts to address this, but only because they were called out on it. Like apologising when you get caught.

Who pays the piper calls the tune as they say.

As for my skepticism Richard. I am sceptical about many things in our day and age of fake news because who and what can you trust? The truth is hard to find. Have you seen the documentary 'Hypernormalisation'? Interesting and explains a lot about where we are now.

When I listen to our global leaders wax about peace and a fairer world for everyone. I then think about the same leaders countires and their arms industries who sell weapons to oppressive regimes that have no function other than to kill. Their fairer world exploits weaker countries and creates poverty or debts that can't be paid, so they asset strip. Yeah, a healthy dose of skepticism isn't a bad thing.

You're proving my point tokeless.

The first link is about Koch Industries. Yes, they are big money paying for skepticism. You think that is wrong? You think Koch should be silenced, that only the 97% should have a voice?

And your second link...How many ads denying climate change should be allowed by FaceBook?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:You're proving my point tokeless.

The first link is about Koch Industries. Yes, they are big money paying for skepticism. You think that is wrong? You think Koch should be silenced, that only the 97% should have a voice?

And your second link...How many ads denying climate change should be allowed by FaceBook?

I don't think Koch should be able to override the 97% because he has the resources either.
Facebook should be a platform that is impartial because many people see things on facebook and think it's fact.

tokeless wrote: I don't think Koch should be able to override the 97% because he has the resources either.

But you think it is okay for there to be 3% of scientists that disagree?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:I am skeptical about the dystopian, world-ending conclusions drawn.

World ending? No. The planet itself will keep turning, but there's only one Planet Earth (and nothing else within reach that we can live on) and we're making a mess of it. We got too clever. It appears that the cleverer we get, the more of a mess we make. We can't expect to house and feed a global population that stacks on another billion every 12 years, because both housing and feeding sacrifice more green space.

I still think David Suzuki explains that best in his talk on exponential growth and "the 59th minute". Sir David Attenborough has made a film in which he talks about how much has changed since he began his career. And to complete my trinity of Davids, David Benatar says it would be better not to be born, because the extra years we've been able to create for our species aren't that great.

I have to agree. My grandmother nursed my grandfather at home from the time he had his stroke to the end, not much fun for her and almost certainly horrible for him, but these days stroke-impaired people don't have even that much. Thanks to nursing homes and medical interventions, they have several more years... in hell. I worked overnight shifts in nursing homes and it was quite an eye-opener! I would prefer to be smashed over the head with a blunt instrument as many times as it took to despatch me, so I agree with Philip Nitschke, the Exit International guy.

Now Richard, I'm sure you can cite many instances of people in their 80s and 90s who are still healthy, productive, and enjoying life. I'm aware there are lot of them, but they are a minority. What you don't hear about is the vast majority for whom life gets worse with each passing year. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/10/heal ... index.html

tokeless wrote:As with Orwell's vision in 1984, the world changed and our understanding of the truth, war and control with it, but it didn't end.

In one sense it ends every microsecond, as do we. It was a whole lot slower for our hunter-gatherer forebears but, as the stats show, it sped up with the industrial revolution and is taking another leap in the technological revolution. Now there are many people like Richard who think technology can overcome the many huge problems we face in housing and feeding our burgeoning number. I say we're not doing that now, and haven't been for a very long time. There were starving children when I was a well-nourished one, and there are millions more of them now.

the powerful pay for science that denies it. It's a global act of self harm and they will attack those who fight them.

Well said!

We have more billionaires yet we have more crisis and poverty.

We have more of everybody, don't we? I'm bewildered by people who get excited about another pregnancy, and expect to be congratulated for it. The most brainless species on the planet reproduces. It's just that we're the experts on use and abuse.

Ironically, I'm the one who's concerned about the future of the planet as we keep increasing our number, while my friend with four children appears to be happy as a sparrow all day long. You'd think it would be the other way round, wouldn't you?