Discussion in 'Science' started by Bowerbird, Apr 6, 2022.
I'm really sickened by arguments such as this, where people blame the destitute for being destitute, and with NO evidence.
I've been to Somalia. They deserve the blame.
I don't blame the destitute for being destitute. I blame people who consciously choose dishonesty, exploitation, tyranny, dishonesty, injustice, irrationality and dishonesty for the logical consequences of their own deliberate choices.
No evidence?? Can you read? Or think? I suggest you read the works of Somalia's most valuable export: Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
That's not good enough.
There are reasons that Somalia failed - why their government was unable to meet the needs of the people in terms of food, security, etc.
People don't choose to be exploited.
Once you put that on your list, you made it crystal clear that you haven't figured out the real issues.
There is their history.
However, even today they can not feed themselves due to extended drought, flooding, locust infestation, and the violence that erupts from that situation.
Their government has never tried to meet the needs of the people.
Generally true. I think there is hope in their most recent leader.
But, they still have serious problems, including in agriculture, their primary source of GDP. They still need food aid. They have problems getting seed and other requirements for agriculture, for example. They have perhaps the world's weakest healthcare system, with COVID keeping people from work. Etc.
You can read the following, where page 24 has the conclusions section.
Is limiting needs anti-human nonsense?
Then let's feast, burn as much oil as possible, chop down as much forest as possible, catch all the fish left in the oceans! Let's live in a big way! And I don't care what happens to the planet.
There was no link in your post.
My experience with Somalia goes back to 1976. I've seen leaders come and go. None has had any personal honor or any interest beyond self-enrichment. That's who they are.
Of course it isn't good enough. But it's what they've chosen.
And I gave them.
Name a Somali government that has ever been interested in meeting the needs of the people.
But they do choose to exploit others, to embrace a philosophy that enables and encourages exploitation, and to tolerate, reward, and even admire successful exploiters.
Wrong. The real issues in Somalia, as everywhere else, are cultural, moral, and philosophical.
Which proves me right.
They cannot feed themselves because their religion tells them to reproduce until there is not enough food for everyone. There has been violence in Somalia no matter what the situation. The fact that you list both drought and flooding should be a clue for you that the weather is not the problem. Lots of countries have both droughts and floods, and find ways to deal with them.
Yes, when the putative reason is to "save the planet."
That's nothing but an absurd and disingenuous strawman fallacy.
Sorry, not much hope in a nation that has been in a civil war since 1988. That is almost 35 years of civil war, and there appears to be no end in sight.
I gave you serious analysis.
You gave personal opinion unbacked by any respected analysis of Somalia.
Yes, it is. Because it is in contradiction with basic science and ecology.
A biosphere can only support a finite number of species. When you have a proper balance, then all have enough resources to provide their needs. Enough grass, the deer thrive. Enough deer, and the wolves thrive. You can never have too much of the lowest level (grass), but you can indeed have too many deer or wolves. Put either the grazers or predators out of scale with what the environment can support, you have a disaster in the making.
At this time, we are at just under 8 billion people. That is an unsustainable population, and the planet is showing the effects from that. Not in temperature, I believe that is entirely natural and not caused by humans. But that is close to a 3 times jump in population just in my own lifetime. Almost twice what it was when Disco was the hottest music on the planet.
We have places now that people are screaming are in a permanent drought. Well, that is only because there is not enough water to support the population. And they have taken all of the readily available sources of water and are still growing.
In animals, the solution for that was simple. Starvation most commonly, but also just dying wholesale from lack of water is damned common. Too many animals in an environment that can't sustain them, then enough animals die off so the habitat can sustain them.
But your response is actually the exact opposite, and makes absolutely no sense. So your answer if the environment will not sustain the population, is to destroy the environment? That makes no sense at all, unless you just want to see everything burn.
But the fact is, you can not "limit human needs", it is impossible. And the planet has used several things to try and limit our population.
War was always a good one. When there is starting to be too many people in an area, war was often good for wiping out 20-40% of the population.
Famine was also a good one, until the capabilities of science got around most of the issues with spoilage and transportation. Now people can live in a desert with no natural resources and still get by just fine.
Pestilence was the other Horseman, and that generally killed more than any other. Why, some plagues were capable of wiping out 60-80% of a population. More than anything else, that is what kept the human population in check for so damned long. But in most ways we have defeated that also, and the population has exploded.
I invite anybody to look into studies of overpopulation. Not on humans and cities, but in animals. Eventually, too many results in a crash, every single time.
But one simply can not "limit needs" with a population of 8 billion humans, that is absolute nonsense. The only solution is to limit the number of humans.
And I still stand by what I have been saying for three decades now. Sometime soon, a plague is going to come along and do a hard reset on our population. But don['t cry over it, that is simply how nature works. And if 3/4 of the human population was to die next year, there will still be more people on the planet left alive than there were at the end of WWII.
Oh good lord. That is so unbelievably pathetic.
Is that not true? Have they not been fighting with the breakaway area of Somaliland for going on 3 decades?
Tell me, what in that is incorrect? Your opinion means absolutely nothing, especially when you want to absolutely ignore clear facts.
I cited real analysis of Somalia.
If you want to disagree with that, please cite something of reasonably equal respect.
*looks back again*
Well, I guess I can read page 24 of nothing, as that is what you cited. Nothing.
And it does not matter what you post, does it for some reason say they have not been involved in a civil war for 3 decades?
You see, this is a common failure I see over and over again. People think that just posting a citation means something. Hell, I can give you 20 citations that dogs are smarter than humans, and that the moon landings were faked. So what? Means nothing, so providing such a citation means nothing.
And all of what you just said was literally garbage. It does not matter where they get their GDP, or anything else. Their country is in a civil war, and for 30 years that has prevented them from doing anything.
You know, there is this real obscure incident that you likely have not heard of. It happened there in 1993, when the US in addition to the UN was trying to distribute food to the people in Somalia. And the US, UN, and Red Cross were all attacked repeatedly in order to stop that distribution of food. Thousands were killed, because some did not want the food to be distributed as that showed the government was a failure.
Simple fact, created famines are a common way for insurgents to destabilize governments. And that will continue to remain a problem until a stable government takes charge of that country.
No you didn't -- unless you think offering it with a straight face somehow makes it "serious."
"Respected" by whom? I identified the relevant facts and their logical implications.
While there are certainly many unsustainable practices, especially wrt fisheries and forests, the idea that a population of 8G is not sustainable is not supported by the evidence. Greenhouse agriculture is 5-10x as productive as open-field agriculture per unit area, and most of the world's non-arable land surface can be used for it. It is not difficult to calculate that even with presently known technology, the earth is capable of producing enough food, at least, to support a human population in the trillions.
The difference is that animals extract, people produce. As Henry George so astutely observed, "The man and the jayhawk both eat chickens; but where there are more jayhawks there are fewer chickens, while where there are more men there are more chickens."
It appears that we are limiting our numbers just fine, except in places where women are forced to have more children than they want by religious or political oppression.
The most likely reset plague will result from genetic manipulation, bioweapons research, etc. It is a scary prospect, but I fear you may be right.
No. The only realistic way forward for some Somalis is to dismember the country to save the functional parts.
There are serious scientists working on the numerous fields affecting climate all over the world. I've identified many. By FAR their consensus is that Earth is warming and the reason is human activity.
You want to counter that by claiming YOU have "identified the relevant facts"?
Are you seriously proposing that Somalia have ANOTHER revolution??
I am proposing, and have proposed for years that the northern part of the country, Somaliland, be allowed to go its own way.
I've seen no credible evidence for such a claim, only political posturing.
Someone has to.
Separate names with a comma.