Wuhan China Coronavirus.

There is DEFINITELY climate change. The argument is more about is it made-made or not, but for those arguing that climate change doesn't exist, they have to be extremely naive.

I've studied meteorology for many years as a hobby and the amount of heat records being broken over this last decade is staggering. So it IS CHANGING.

One can be right that it's not mad-made, I'm not here to argue that, as I don't have enough knowledge about that aspect, BUT climate change IS happening regardless....

"

RPGlitch wrote:

I'm going to assume its 3.5 million dollars invested in global nutrition programs. Cause otherwise the rest of your sentence doesn't make any sense.

https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/global-food-nutrition-security/action-plan-nutrition_en

No my numbers are accurate.

And the 1 billion a year is from a think tank that was intented of rationally looking at the EU budget and focusing the resources with the intend to impact people.

They looked at all the current plans of the EU and the budgets and made an efficiency distribution.
Which plans would yield the most impact when comparing the funds directed to enable them.

I would have to look up the institution that did the work on this but it was a credible source.

Directing 1 billion a year would stop global child stunting and would yield the most economical benefits in the future in human capital returns.(increases in IQ and development)

The study also showed some funny current projects which have abysmall returns on the money invested etc

Thats why i call it ego, when there is a lack of rational reflection on current projects being efficient and yielding the projected results after they have been implemented for a couple of years.
People become intwinned and invested in them and are unable to face facts.

There are a multitude of things we could be doing more efficiently, but that would mean a whole slew of people losing their jobs which are unlikely to vote for such an action.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : btw i responded "develop new technologies" because its imposible to tell people to stop their biological urges.
Unless of-course you mean "tell them" and then don't care about what they do in reality.

In which case, yeah just telling them is less intensive.

I'm not particularly a fan of eugenetics so i don't favor population control, as far as we can tell by the past centuries implementation of such actions it leads to terrible distribution problems in the population.
Just look at the current women vs men distribution in country's like india and china and the social problems that arise out of that like rape occurances and the human trafficking of baby girls.(people buying stolen girls to wed to their sons etc)

It's a big mess when people with the arogance to think they know better then a couple of milion of individuals interfere with the natural balance of things.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

There is a reason countries don't just invent new technologies to combat their population issues.

For more than 100 years now doomsayers have been saying we have less than 30 years to go before we'll face global calamity as a result of overpopulation and/or overproduction. These apocalyptic predictions always fail to come true, because the citizens of countries keep inventing new and marketable technologies to combat the issues created by growing populations. The countries that rank highest in terms of economic freedom and entrepreneurial opportunity are the countries that are the least polluted and the least malnourished, because the only way to stop the continued innovation of such technologies is for government to either stand in the way or insist upon centralized micromanagement.

Getting people to avoid childrearing is generally more difficult, because it mostly revolves around convincing people of the opposite of the truths of the previous paragraph. Granted, some of the argument would be convincing women of the appeal of lifestyles other than motherhood, but the other half of that coin is convincing women that motherhood is leading us to global disaster. This latter point requires historical revisionism.

^Not to mention its a mental and physical attack on women in general.

The numbers of children that were killed against the mothers will because culturally the family wanted an heir is quite stagering.
Or simply because they had an "accident" and got more then the "allowed" amount of children.

There are some pretty solid horror story's if you dive into the period of 1900-1950 and eugenetics.

And past that you can always read the accounts of china under the one-child policy and the story's about people finding it completely normal to see dead baby's on the market place sqaure or on the sidewalk of streets.
Left behind by people out of fear of being prosecuted by the state but hopefull somebody else would take the child home which most of the time didn't happen so just ended up in baby corpses being a common sight.

There should be something frightening in most people's mind from developed country's when you read the sentence "baby corpses where a common sight".
Reminds me of an account from a girl that escaped north-korea in 2017 and found it weird how streets in south-korea didn't have this phenomenon, she grew up with such a scenery her whole life that she simply thought this was the natural state of things.

Peace,

-Boem-

Eugenetics are great if they are applied to everyone else except me.

"

Mentoya wrote:

There is DEFINITELY climate change. The argument is more about is it made-made or not, but for those arguing that climate change doesn't exist, they have to be extremely naive.

I've studied meteorology for many years as a hobby and the amount of heat records being broken over this last decade is staggering. So it IS CHANGING.

One can be right that it's not mad-made, I'm not here to argue that, as I don't have enough knowledge about that aspect, BUT climate change IS happening regardless....

Sure the climate is changing. It will always be changing, and dramatically over time. (And has in the past millions of years)

The problem is the politics of climate change. Does humanity have an impact on the climate? Sure. Can we cause dramatic shifts, and environmental damage if we wanted. Sure.

But is Suzy Homemaker driving an SUV contributing to Miami sinking into the Ocean? Please. Or CO2 emissions compared to forest fires and volcanic eruptions. It's just not a reasonable argument imo.

Not to mention the massive hubris here, that somehow we now have an understanding of our climate, over many biomes and biospheres at a global level. We dont. Again not reasonable that a few climatologists have all this figured out over the last 50 years.

I think many of these environmental folks should just focus on the things we can all agree on. Plastics and trash in the ocean, large corporations and pollution of our water supplies, consumption of natural resources, etc...

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

I think many of these environmental folks should just focus on the things we can all agree on. Plastics and trash in the ocean, large corporations and pollution of our water supplies, consumption of natural resources, etc...

What makes you think there's agreement on that stuff? Sure a lot of people don't like them, but there's hardly any agreement over what to do about them. As soon as it comes to actually making the changes or sacrifices needed to fix them, that seeming consensus quickly disappears. Environmentalists have talked about those things for decades, and similarly had very little success. Cos it isn't about which issues they pick, it's about the powers that be not liking change at all.

In other news, the biggest storm in more than 20 years has hit already pandemic-affected India and Bangladesh - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/18/india-prepares-to-evacuate-a-million-as-cyclone-amphan-nears