So, there are still people not believing it?

I would highly disagree that having large amounts of children is only because of high infant mortality rates. A great deal of it is cultural as well. Look at the Latin American countries for example. Abortion is illegal there. The catholic church has gotten its grubby hands in all sorts of pies with its backward/regressive teachings.

Another one is just plain humans, 'I don't give a fuck'.

I mean, how many times do we have to see the story of a woman who just had way too many kids with a fucking shit bag. She knows the dude's an asshole and CONTINUES to have kids with the guy.

Dudes can't even be bothered to fucking pull out.

And I tend to agree with Haas.

Science is really the only way forward and if necessary, though unfortunate, the countries with less power will have to sacrifice more. It is just the way things are. The more advanced countries will cope with technology while the poorer countries will have to make do.
 
There's no such thing as "us and them", there's only "us" and "us" includes every being on Earth. Everything on this planet, the natural world, the history, the culture belong to all of us, no matter how foreign or weird it might seem to you. This planet is our home, when there's a fire in one of the rooms, you can't say "meh, I don't care, not my business". When you do, you're just being an idiot.
 
Given how selfish humans in general can be, it is what is going to happen. So far, both sides are on the same path.

There are those who over consume and there are those who keep over populating.

You have non western countries making unilateral decisions like 'The West should bear the brunt of environmental austerity while the 'poorer', countries should have lower standards because their economies still need to grow'.

Until both sides are willing to sacrifice, which is probably not going to happen, science will have to step in.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious if there's any decent scifi story, book or movie that portraits a dystopian future and deals with drought, famine and/or climate change that can be adapted as an RPG. (Perhaps a survival RPG type of thing).
 
nkchan16 said:
There's no such thing as "us and them", there's only "us" and "us" includes every being on Earth. Everything on this planet, the natural world, the history, the culture belong to all of us, no matter how foreign or weird it might seem to you. This planet is our home, when there's a fire in one of the rooms, you can't say "meh, I don't care, not my business". When you do, you're just being an idiot.
Click to expand...
That's a nice sentiment, but when it comes to self-preservation, this might not go far.
Population in Africa is exploding, unchecked. They're already approaching european levels of population density, largely without the highly efficient farming, productivity and work ethic. Africa, at this point, can't really sustain itself. And if climate change makes the land in Africa even worse for farming and survival, there will be several billion people looking forward to going to greener pastures, literally. The fact of the matter is, then, that you can't fit this many new people into Europe or America. Many will still die in Africa. And if you strain the western world too much, it will go down as well. Tribalism is a fundamental part of human nature, it won't go away so easily. "Us vs. them" will come into play often and easily.
 
Turns out, someof the people have been right in the 1950s when the European Union was created. Already back then, some warned that if we do not help and support Africa, it will come back and hit us in the future.
 
Hassknecht said:
That's a nice sentiment, but when it comes to self-preservation, this might not go far.
Click to expand...
It wasn't really a sentiment, rather a fact, which will stay as a fact forever. The current state of world, as well as what's going to happen in the near future, is a direct result of humans ignoring that fact. You don't need to go to Africa or to the future to see the adverse effects of "tribalism". Brexit was one good example for it. Nationalism (i.e. advanced tribalism) are on the rise all over the world and all that tells me that people either want to continue to repeat the human history or are unaware of what's going to happen in the end. If human race truly wants to achieve the goals you listed in your previous post, then they have to break this cycle and learn to think as one.

Crni Vuk said:
Turns out, someof the people have been right in the 1950s when the European Union was created. Already back then, some warned that if we do not help and support Africa, it will come back and hit us in the future.
Click to expand...

It's not just Africa, the whole world pretty much just sat there and watched the wildfire in the Middle East and then "OMG! REFUGEES! SHOO!".
 
Last edited:
Crni

All the help in the world will not change anything.

It is the hospital, water well analogy, all over again. Investment is important but their culture and belief system NEEDS to CHANGE. If you increase life spans, there is no guarantee that birth rates will drop. Your video does nothing to address basic and inherent problems of culture, religion and general backwardness.
\
Lots of tribes in Africa were told female genital mutilation is wrong and they told us to go fuck ourselves. Well, same with population. 'Having too many babies is bad' we say. Their answer, fuck you, don't dictate to us how to live our lives, culture, what the fuck ever.
 
DarkCorp said:
We HAVE cleaner forms of power, NUCLEAR. But the anti-nuke fucktards see a few small examples like Fukushima, which wasn't even a fault with the plant so much as a goddamned tsunami, or Chernobyl or 3 mile and flip the fuck out.
Click to expand...
It's something bigger. It's ideological bullshit, soviet marxism against certain branches of science (without which we'd never have nuclear shield against you, westerners) but reversed. We were lucky because we had Beria.
Western world doesn't want to fall into the hands of russkies but can't build their own since there's no qualified people and doesn't have dedicated nuclear lobby.
 
0wing

??

We have the lobbyists. Nuclear power, at least in the west, faces handicaps because of the anti-nuclear crowd, with maybe some push back from coal or natural gas lobbyists. For the rest of the world, including Europe, I would say it is because of the hippies. Europe has gone hard left for some time now and only recently, with the refugees and their social systems straining under 'too many mouths to feed', have right wing and nationalist parties gotten power.

AFD anyone??

And don't forget the Rosenbergs. I think it is the other way around, Russkies stole OUR ncucear secrets.
 
DarkCorp said:
Crni

All the help in the world will not change anything.
Click to expand...
We never really tried it. Considering how much of our GDPs has gone in weapons and defence the amount of 'foreign aid' we applied, was just a joke. It really was. Imagine what could be done with just half of the defence budgeds was used to solve some of the most glaring issues. We are always very quick when it comes to bombing stuff and even sending boots to the ground (see Iraq and Afghanistan). But it would have been more effective, if we simply droped all that money those wars costed us, over those villages and nations we bombed and occupied.

Besides, even if that was true that we can't change anything, it shouldn't stop us from trying it anyway. What do we have to loose? Shit is going to hit the fan anyway in your scenario.
 
Crni

I would agree to your proposal as long as there are caveats.

We can send more aid but that comes with rules. And if these countries take our aid, then they need to do what we tell them to do with that money. Mainly stop embezzling it and giving it to corrupt politicians and use it for some good. Don't take it and go bat shit crazy socialism. Remember, socialism worked in Europe because you folks had a stable foundation, created by CAPITALISM and IMPERIALISM.

Trying to go immediate socialism or capitalism, without a stable foundationwill get you what the Russians went through.

I don't want to hear this shit about, imperialism either. It is clear that your government is too corrupt to be entrusted with money and no strings attached.
 
It's easy to speak in favor of nuclear power when you don't have to live near Chernobyl or Fukushima or any other nuclear plant. You won't get cancer, won't have to eat radioactive food, won't have to find a market for your agricultural products which nobody wants anymore... Nuclear power in its current state is no solution, only prone to more disasters, which you probably won't even hear about.
 
Fukushima was due to a tsunami, not inherent failures of the plant. Chernobyl is a prime example of communist in efficiency. We had 3 Mile but that wasn't all that bad and was blown a bit out of proportion.

TBH, nuclear power is the cleanest, cheapest, and most efficient alternative compared to everything else we have available at the moment. Nothing else can generate the amount of power we need while staing clean, as as clean as can be.
 
DarkCorp said:
Fukushima was due to a tsunami, not inherent failures of the plant. Chernobyl is a prime example of communist in efficiency.
Click to expand...
There is no place on the planet that is completely protected against natural (or cosmic) disasters and we don't have the technology that is immune to failure (of any kind).

DarkCorp said:
TBH, nuclear power is the cleanest, cheapest, and most efficient alternative compared to everything else we have available at the moment. Nothing else can generate the amount of power we need while staing clean, as as clean as can be.
Click to expand...
In my opinion solar makes the most sense.
 
nkchan

Lol, is solar going to be as CHEAP and as EFFICIENT as nuclear? By efficient, I mean will it provide enough power to satisfy the needs of the populace?
 
DarkCorp said:
Fukushima was due to a tsunami, not inherent failures of the plant
Click to expand...
Fukushima power plant was built and designed by ULTRA-AMERICAN company General Electric, who fucked up on estimating the potential of tsunamis.
DarkCorp said:
Chernobyl is a prime example of communist in efficiency.
Click to expand...
I can also shrug off incompetence on capitalism even better, general electric be my witness.
 
Nuclear Energy can only be, if anything a short term solution. It is not as cheap and clean as it seems. Sure, it's cleaner than coal, but there are still issues, and we havn't found a solution for those either. The more nuclear plants you have, the more nuclear waste will there be and you can't just throw it in the next ocean or burry it in someones garden. There are not many places where it can be stored effectively and safely. The other issue with nuclear energy, it's not cheap really. It requires a lot of technology, safety and knowledge to make it work. Mining Uranium is also a relatively dirty buisness. I do believe that we still need nuclear energy, but it's far from a perfect energy source and the danger of nuclear proliferation is also real and shouldn't be understimated. There is a reason why everyone goes crazy when Iran says, hey we want peacefull reactors! Because everyone with half a brain knows, how easy it is to go from civilian to military use. On top of all that, the increased number of reactors, also means an increased risk of one of those reactors leaking radiation.
 
DarkCorp said:
And don't forget the Rosenbergs. I think it is the other way around, Russkies stole OUR ncucear secrets.
Click to expand...
Those were general directions on the way to develop nuclear bomb, we did it ourselves.
That besides this point:
Your secrets are history, western nuclear companies' problem with cadres scarcity is present, the future is insinuatingly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top