What would be the most important thing than humans should try to achieve in priority in your opinion ?

[iNow]

^ +1

48 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I like the boat analogy in that it makes the point that affirmative action programs were never intended to be permanent.  They are supposed to be implemented, I'm using college as an example, to help get minorities who start with some academic disadvantages into the college system.  Course corrections on the boat.  The idea was always that the following generations, raised with the advantages of college-educated higher-earning (sometimes) parents, won't need AA at all.  That was the whole point of Senator Daniel P. Moynihan's concept of breaking the cycle of poverty.  AA is a ladder out of a hole, not a permanent fixture everywhere you go.  

If a smart kid has trouble keeping up in school because parents (or a single parent) can't provide homework help, a quiet study space, extra cash for lessons and tutoring, a big shelf of books, trips to museums and arts events, and an array of other amenities that help kids do well in school....well, it's in society's best interest to give him some extra help, because it's in society's interest to have citizens that reach their intellectual potential.  

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

If a smart kid has trouble keeping up in school because parents (or a single parent) can't provide homework help, a quiet study space, extra cash for lessons and tutoring, a big shelf of books, trips to museums and arts events, and an array of other amenities that help kids do well in school....well, it's in society's best interest to give him some extra help, because it's in society's interest to have citizens that reach their intellectual potential.  

This should have priority, imo. In the US, Capitalists want workers to revere working hard, not reaching their intellectual potential. I can't even imagine the money that's been poured over the years into campaigns and laws that emphasize this bootstrap mentality where sweating is preferable to thinking. 

There were an awful lot of free colleges and universities in the US before Ronald Reagan (as gov of CA) started charging for tuition in California, to keep out "undesirables". Much of the reason why there are so many poorly educated white people is because folks like Reagan didn't want smart black people taking over. Perhaps forty years later we can overlook our fear of PoC and decide smarter is better.

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

I like the boat analogy in that it makes the point that affirmative action programs were never intended to be permanent.  They are supposed to be implemented, I'm using college as an example, to help get minorities who start with some academic disadvantages into the college system.

It should also be noted that at least in US Colleges can only use factors such as race in admission only in a fairly limited sense. Specifically, they are only allowed to use it in order to create a diverse learning environment. While it can (and hopefully) does help underprivileged groups, I *think* they are not allowed to use that as justification. While only tangentially relevant, it should also be added that a minority of colleges use such mechanisms and it is banned in a few states for quite a while already.

At the same time, if you ask folks some think that this is a dominant selection mechanism. I.e. similar to other efforts of equity, folks overestimate what is actual done (i.e. the level of course correction) relative to what is actually happening. And certain news outlets heavily use the assumed impact and treat it as reality to manufacture outrage. 

Edit: I should add that there is apparently a playbook/script of sorts by conservative groups that try to associate e.g. critical race theory and affirmative action with racism, gender identity to sexual exploitation/grooming and so on. While this was the purview of the extreme fringe, they have gotten sufficient traction that they have entered the mainstream (as evidenced by politicians espousing such rhetoric). So it is not just shitty reporting, as my post might have suggested.

[dimreepr]

On 12/16/2022 at 8:01 AM, Intoscience said:

I haven't forced anyone to do anything, nor would I try.

My son complains about something only he has the power to change.

Go figure

Perhaps not and perhaps he can.

But the problem is, you think you know better; so, in actual fact, you're trying to force him to comply with your biased thinking; without thinking you are... 🤒

[Intoscience]

On 12/17/2022 at 1:02 PM, dimreepr said:

Perhaps not and perhaps he can.

But the problem is, you think you know better; so, in actual fact, you're trying to force him to comply with your biased thinking; without thinking you are... 🤒

Biased? I'm pointing out a fact not an opinion. If he wants to complain about something that only he himself can sort out then that's his prerogative.  

To your point about knowing better, well in part this might well be true since I have 35+ years extra experience in many things especially life lessons. Which doesn't mean i'm going to be correct, but I think this qualifies me somewhat.  

On 12/16/2022 at 3:46 PM, Moontanman said:

Can you elaborate? What extra privileges are the less privileged being empowered with?  

Reading through the thread I can see that any reply I make will be pointless anyhow. I'm basing my thinking on personal experience local to me.

An example of extra privileges which is a real example experienced by a family member. My cousin, who works in a local hospital as a ward manager has been told by her senior managers that she must prioritise all ethnic minority patients so that the hospital can show that they are being inclusive and diverse. 

Wokeness gone overboard; A male sports instructor/coach who chooses to be identified as a female is given rights to enter the female changing room whilst young girls are changing. 

I have no problem with equal rights and equal opportunities and mending/learning from the atrocities that still go on and went on throughout history. But there has to surely be a line drawn when things are taken too far.   

On 12/16/2022 at 5:02 PM, Phi for All said:

I've never understood the stance. I've been on enough boats to know that if you're off course, it's not enough to simply return to center. You need to overcompensate, steer hard to port for a while before coming back to center, because you were headed too far to starboard

That's fine so long as you don't steer too far the other way else you will still be off course. You have to ensure you actually get back to centre. 

So I will reiterate, I have no problem with steering the ship a little excessively to get back on course. I do however have a problem with steering too far.   

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Biased? I'm pointing out a fact not an opinion. If he wants to complain about something that only he himself can sort out then that's his prerogative. 

Thinking you know the answer and knowing the answer are different, and pointing out a fact that is common to all humans (physiology aside), however closely related, is your person opinion/bias.

I don't know what problem's you and your son are having, it's not really relevant; let's imagine (for examples sake) he was an alcoholic, while it's perfectly true that he has to stop drinking, just telling him that won't achieve anything.

Even the brightest of student's sometimes need more than just a lecture, there's a philosophical name for that problem (which I can't recall).

I think bad teachers are responsible for a lot of our biased opinion, that's not a fact it's just my opinion based on observations. 

 

Edited December 21, 2022 by dimreepr

[CharonY]

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

An example of extra privileges which is a real example experienced by a family member. My cousin, who works in a local hospital as a ward manager has been told by her senior managers that she must prioritise all ethnic minority patients so that the hospital can show that they are being inclusive and diverse. 

I think this looks like extra privilege as it lacks the added context why it is important to show being inclusive. The issue is that studies have shown that in many countries the health system underservices minority patients. Especially, but not limited to indigenous persons. 

These issues also overlap with socio-economic factors so by paying that extra care the hope is to raise the level of health outcomes to at least something approaching that of majority patients. If we are talking about anecdotes, I have somethin to share specifically in that area. When my father fell ill and was extreme pain he was diagnosed with home sickness and the MD told him that he just wants to get back to his home country. While he narrowly avoided losing the use of his legs, and he managed to continue working until retirement, he is in constant pain. The disease itself is easily diagnosed if just the same level of care had been given as to a majority patient. Also, it was not just one MD. After the first made his ridiculous diagnosis it was impossible to get a dissenting second opinion. Now, this was quite a long time ago, but these attitudes were extremely prevalent. 

So the course correction you mentioned there is not extra privilege. It is a countermeasure to be being treated extra-shitty.

 

 

[Phi for All]

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

That's fine so long as you don't steer too far the other way else you will still be off course.

So, I shouldn't drop the baby. Got it.

I was waiting for this response. It's an assumption many make wrt privilege (among other things), that we'll automatically over-correct if we even try to correct. I'm reminded of the joke: What if climate change is a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing? 

[TheVat]

I used to have a quip something like: what if global warming isn't real and all we end up with is cities full of clean air?  

[Moontanman]

11 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Reading through the thread I can see that any reply I make will be pointless anyhow. I'm basing my thinking on personal experience local to me.

That seems fair, generally speaking all we can really know is what we have experienced for ourselves. 

11 hours ago, Intoscience said:

An example of extra privileges which is a real example experienced by a family member. My cousin, who works in a local hospital as a ward manager has been told by her senior managers that she must prioritise all ethnic minority patients so that the hospital can show that they are being inclusive and diverse.

I'm not sure how this is a privilege, can you elaborate?  

11 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Wokeness gone overboard; A male sports instructor/coach who chooses to be identified as a female is given rights to enter the female changing room whilst young girls are changing.

Can you give us a link to this, I'm not trying to be combative but this would seem to be nothing but a conservative talking point with no basis in reality other than fear mongering. 

11 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I have no problem with equal rights and equal opportunities and mending/learning from the atrocities that still go on and went on throughout history. But there has to surely be a line drawn when things are taken too far. 

How far is too far and who decides? 

11 hours ago, Intoscience said:

That's fine so long as you don't steer too far the other way else you will still be off course. You have to ensure you actually get back to centre. 

So I will reiterate, I have no problem with steering the ship a little excessively to get back on course. I do however have a problem with steering too far.   

Again who decides how far is too far? Currently conservatives seem to be claiming that simply acknowledging reality is going too far. 

[iNow]

20 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

simply acknowledging reality is going too far. 

It’s tribal. Cannot be allowed to challenge or contradict their worldview or ideology, regardless of how fictional the narratives have become. 

Edited December 21, 2022 by iNow

[Genady]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

When my father fell ill and was extreme pain he was diagnosed with home sickness and the MD told him that he just wants to get back to his home country.

Sorry, I don't want to interrupt the discussion, just to notice that I got exactly the same "diagnosis" many years ago soon after moving to a new country. My complaint was an abdominal pain. Later it turned out to be an allergic reaction to coconuts. 

[mistermack]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

I used to have a quip something like: what if global warming isn't real and all we end up with is cities  Pockets full of clean air?     

 

What's the most important thing ?

Ask God, he might know. 

"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Then God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply."

That's what he wanted. Unfortunately, he didn't leave instructions for what to do AFTER all that. The multiplying has gone ballistic and now there are seven billion of us. We are filling the Earth and subduing it. We are ruling over every living creature that moves. But God obviously forgot about viruses, bacteria and fungal infectious agents. 

My own "important thing" would be to rein in the multiplying, get it back to five billion and falling. 

[Genady]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

... now there are seven billion of us.

Eight! 

World Population Clock: 8 Billion People (LIVE, 2022) - Worldometer (worldometers.info)

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, mistermack said:

The multiplying has gone ballistic and now there are seven billion of us. We are filling the Earth and subduing it. We are ruling over every living creature that moves. But God obviously forgot about viruses, bacteria and fungal infectious agents. 

My own "important thing" would be to rein in the multiplying, get it back to five billion and falling.

How do you propose to do that, without some sort of cull?

Without a cull, you would unbalance the population, to the point that more people need care than there are people capable of careing, that would result in a self induced natural cull, in which you'd be included; it could be argued that that would be the fairest way; unless, of course, you're one of the population that's forcibly castrated.

Besides, who decides who should be forcibly castrated? Let me guess, those who are seen to be littering... 

[mistermack]

13 hours ago, Genady said:

Eight! 

World Population Clock: 8 Billion People (LIVE, 2022) - Worldometer (worldometers.info)

Eight, Eight, Eight, I have Eight in the room. Any advance on Eight ? 

Do I hear nine ? ? 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

How do you propose to do that, without some sort of cull?

It's only a handful of countries that are driving population expansion. Many other cultures have shrinking populations without any sort of compulsion. Just make birth control free and available to all, but especially to the countries with expanding populations. 

Of course, new inventions in birth control methods would make a big difference. The forecasts are that population growth will eventually end, so the experts think it will happen naturally in the end and top out around 11 billion, and then start dropping. There are plenty of ways to try to accelerate that process. 

[Genady]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Eight, Eight, Eight, I have Eight in the room. Any advance on Eight ? 

Do I hear nine ? ? 

You will.

[TheVat]

The demographic transition is so far the only known way that fertility rates show sustained drop.  Wars, famines, pandemics, are all temporary and often lead to a reaction bounce later which cancels out their effect.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

So while we must help that transition happen wherever possible, with measures like erasing heavy debt for third world countries, we need to also get serious about transition to green energy, methane-reduced rice and other agriculture, rainforest protection, etc.  There's not a one most important thing that fixes everything 

 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

It's only a handful of countries that are driving population expansion. Many other cultures have shrinking populations without any sort of compulsion. Just make birth control free and available to all, but especially to the countries with expanding populations. 

A few things here: as TheVat mentioned, birth control is not the sole issue, improving standard of living is one of the drivers of reduced birth rates. Also, the number of people will continue to increase due to demographic momentum. The only way to reduce the number of folks is to actually kill people off.

And also the focus on population alone is very misleading. Countries that have positive population growth tend to use much fewer resources than their counterparts with declining or stabilizing populations. 

Each Canadian has the CO2 footprint of about 200 Somalians, for example.

19 hours ago, Genady said:

Sorry, I don't want to interrupt the discussion, just to notice that I got exactly the same "diagnosis" many years ago soon after moving to a new country. My complaint was an abdominal pain. Later it turned out to be an allergic reaction to coconuts. 

Sorry to hear that it happened to you, too. Now talking to folks from way back, these types of gaslighting were shockingly common. There is a bit of a momentum in various health system to combat that, but despite improvements, there are still rather horrific cases out there. 

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

You will.

Not very likely. 

[iNow]

Maybe if you eat right and exercise 

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Maybe if you eat right and exercise

Not very likely

[Ken Fabian]

Availability of education, healthcare and contraception with a minimum of basic needs being met seems to be the most effective way to reduce population growth. Reducing population deliberately takes us into crimes against humanity territory - and almost inevitably means preferentially reducing numbers of people who aren't like us. Even schemes involving random selection are bound to include exceptions, for people like us.

Problems like global warming being framed as overpopulation problems leads to presumptions of either solutions being unachievement (so don't bother) or else that anyone who is genuine must inevitably support policies that promote or lead to tyrannical control over people's lives (so must be opposed). Whereas I think it is more correctly framed as a dirty energy problem - so that when our primary energy is zero emissions even high populations with high energy use will have low emissions. It doesn't make solutions easy but it doesn't make them unachievable or tyrannical.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

Problems like global warming being framed as overpopulation problems leads to presumptions of either solutions being unachievement (so don't bother) or else that anyone who is genuine must inevitably support policies that promote or lead to tyrannical control over people's lives (so must be opposed). Whereas I think it is more correctly framed as a dirty energy problem - so that when our primary energy is zero emissions even high populations with high energy use will have low emissions. It doesn't make solutions easy but it doesn't make them unachievable or tyrannical.

Often these arguments are just a poor excuse not to do anything. E.g. the thought that any reduction of emissions is meaningless, as China is producing so much. Often sprinkled with bigoted sentiments (we are not the problem, those folks are). Thereby we are repeatedly shooting ourselves in the foot in an effort to sit an on an issue up until we are forced to do something. Seems to the modus operandi for a lot of population-wide issues, including the pandemic, for example. 

[mistermack]

The carbon problem is only a small part of the damage the current population levels are doing to the planet and it's genome. The main ones are habitat destruction and species extinction. 

While I'm fond of humans, I don't value them so highly that they are worth the extinctions they are causing. We are far to self-centered putting our own comforts over the existence of others. 

The only way to reverse the damage is to reduce our numbers, and it really pisses me off that hardly anybody gives a toss. As if making a difference is impossible, when it's actually highly possible.

I personally put extinction of species way above human rights, because there are eight billion of us, we are in no danger, whereas things like Amur Leopard and Tigers are most definitely on the way to extinction, it's just a matter of time. Given the power, I would make sure that every country had a falling birth rate. If religions were against it, I'd ban the religions, and introduce compulsory birth control education in the countries that need it. 

Human rights vs extinctions? No contest in my book. 

However, none of that will happen. The population will hit 11 or 12 billion, and tens of thousands of species will go extinct. But most of us won't be here then, so who cares ?