The Biggest Problem for Modern Civilisation?

First topic message reminder :

So, pretty standard question. We occasionally hear how something is 'the biggest problem' facing the world. This ranges from things like those in my poll (not all of which I agree with, but ARE commonly claimed), and many others.

If you think the biggest problem facing the world is in the poll, choose it. If not, mention it in the comments below and if enough agree I'll add it to the poll.

Will be interesting to see what people think, considering some of the insanity I've read here and seen and heard elsewhere about what our biggest issues really are.

I voted already - for me, Climate Change is, without a doubt, THE biggest concern for us all and the thing we should be working hardest on fixing for the foreseeable future.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

phildidge wrote:

At least my dreams are not based on you thinking Israel is that hateful, it would seriously drop a nuke on Iran for no other reason, than your warped paranoia

I never said that Israel is "hateful" at all. The 1947 convention of the Arab states that Israelis should be thrown back to the sea" has never been revoked. The extreme theocratic Islamic state of Iran is Israel's greatest threat, I have worked in Israel and support Israel and its statehood and  independence without question.

And I rely on my RAF staff training in international relations as a far, far greater qualification than some fucking "armchair general" opinion based on what he has been able to dredge up from Wikipaedia.

Really?

Do I have to school you again on history and what body is this you speak of when you say Arab?

Both Jordan and Egypt, have signed seperate peace agreements with israel

I certainly take your training to be as reliant as jackonory. When you think if the US attacked North Korea. This would then mean israel would nuke Iran.

Israel throughout its history has faced unprecedented threats. When faced with a nuclear threat from Syria. It took matters into its own hands. It never used nuke weapons, but carried out a daring raid to dsestroy that facility. The world then condemned them. Even though in hindsight, thank goodness Israel did do this. Can you imagine Assad with Nuke weapons, when he was on the ropes in the civil war. When he on countless occasions used chemical weapons?

And you have the audacity to claim that serving time in the RAF, makes you some how an expert on Israeli policy?

Spare me the waffle

To add to this and when Saddam was trying to build his own Nukes. The one country that sighed the biggest relief, even though vocally condemning the Israeli attack that destroyed Iraq's Nuke facilities. Was wait for it......

Iran. The world condemned israel for this and nobody gave them a free pass to carry out this attack. Yet silently, the world was thankful Israel did this

So yes, from its infanacy, Israel has faced constant threats and not once used its nuclear weapons in defense of its country

phildidge wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I never said that Israel is "hateful" at all. The 1947 convention of the Arab states that Israelis should be thrown back to the sea" has never been revoked. The extreme theocratic Islamic state of Iran is Israel's greatest threat, I have worked in Israel and support Israel and its statehood and  independence without question.

And I rely on my RAF staff training in international relations as a far, far greater qualification than some fucking "armchair general" opinion based on what he has been able to dredge up from Wikipaedia.

Really?

Do I have to school you again on history and what body is this you speak of when you say Arab?

Both Jordan and Egypt, have signed seperate peace agreements with israel

I certainly take your training to be as reliant as jackonory. When you think if the US attacked North Korea. This would then mean israel would nuke Iran.

Israel throughout its history has faced unprecedented threats. When faced with a nuclear threat from Syria. It took matters into its own hands. It never used nuke weapons, but carried out a daring raid to dsestroy that facility. The world then condemned them. Even though in hindsight, thank goodness Israel did do this. Can you imagine Assad with Nuke weapons, when he was on the ropes in the civil war. When he on countless occasions used chemical weapons?

And you have the audacity to claim that serving time in the RAF, makes you some how an expert on Israeli policy?

Spare me the waffle

To add to this and when Saddam was trying to build his own Nukes. The one country that sighed the biggest relief, even though vocally condemning the Israeli attack that destroyed Iraq's Nuke facilities. Was wait for it......

Iran. The world condemned israel for this and nobody gave them a free pass to carry out this attack. Yet silently, the world was thankful Israel did this

So yes, from its infanacy, Israel has faced constant threats and not once used its nuclear weapons in defense of its country

I don't need you, of all people, to "school" me in anything.

If you are incapable of understanding a proposition then I suggest that you don't make an even greater fool of yourself by trying to justify your ignorance.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Really?

Do I have to school you again on history and what body is this you speak of when you say Arab?

Both Jordan and Egypt, have signed seperate peace agreements with israel

I certainly take your training to be as reliant as jackonory. When you think if the US attacked North Korea. This would then mean israel would nuke Iran.

Israel throughout its history has faced unprecedented threats. When faced with a nuclear threat from Syria. It took matters into its own hands. It never used nuke weapons, but carried out a daring raid to dsestroy that facility. The world then condemned them. Even though in hindsight, thank goodness Israel did do this. Can you imagine Assad with Nuke weapons, when he was on the ropes in the civil war. When he on countless occasions used chemical weapons?

And you have the audacity to claim that serving time in the RAF, makes you some how an expert on Israeli policy?

Spare me the waffle

To add to this and when Saddam was trying to build his own Nukes. The one country that sighed the biggest relief, even though vocally condemning the Israeli attack that destroyed Iraq's Nuke facilities. Was wait for it......

Iran. The world condemned israel for this and nobody gave them a free pass to carry out this attack. Yet silently, the world was thankful Israel did this

So yes, from its infanacy, Israel has faced constant threats and not once used its nuclear weapons in defense of its country

I don't need you, of all people, to "school" me in anything.

If you are incapable of understanding a proposition then I suggest that you don't make an even greater fool of yourself by trying to justify your ignorance.

Well i can certainly understand idiocy when i see it

Of course you dont think you are capable of doing anything wrong, that reeks of the snobbish attitude you have. That you think you are incapable of being wrong and that your shit smells better than most

So lets address your warped paranoia again

You claimed this

Fred Moletrousers wrote:The US would obliterate North Korea, the Israelis would take it as a "prompt" to obliterate Iran...and Putin's reaction would be very, very unpredictable!

Israel has on two occasions, without any backing from the US. To carry out two daring bombing raids. That took out the nuke facilities of both Iraq and Syria.

Hence based off the most absurd view above, when israel already takes out Iranian forces in Syria and weapons bound for Lebanon and gaza, That you think Israel needs an excuse to obliterate Iran? Shows and proves how out of touch with reality you are on this

Israel has never, nor would want to do so. As unlike you, its sees the regeme as the problem and not the people of Iran.
Hence why Israel would never seek to obliterate Iran

phildidge wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I don't need you, of all people, to "school" me in anything.

If you are incapable of understanding a proposition then I suggest that you don't make an even greater fool of yourself by trying to justify your ignorance.

Well i can certainly understand idiocy when i see it

Of course you dont think you are capable of doing anything wrong, that reeks of the snobbish attitude you have. That you think you are incapable of being wrong and that your shit smells better than most

So lets address your warped paranoia again

You claimed this

Fred Moletrousers wrote:The US would obliterate North Korea, the Israelis would take it as a "prompt" to obliterate Iran...and Putin's reaction would be very, very unpredictable!

Israel has on two occasions, without any backing from the US. To carry out two daring bombing raids. That took out the nuke facilities of both Iraq and Syria.

Hence based off the most absurd view above, when israel already takes out Iranian forces in Syria and weapons bound for Lebanon and gaza, That you think Israel needs an excuse to obliterate Iran? Shows and proves how out of touch with reality you are on this

Israel has never, nor would want to do so. As unlike you, its sees the regeme as the problem and not the people of Iran.
Hence why Israel would never seek to obliterate Iran

Believe what you want... it is of little interest to me.

You are completely, and utterly wrong.

i voted climate change

apart from renewable energies, i'm not sure what can be done anyway as the world has always changed temperatures and probably always will

I voted for Political Correctness. I’ll tell you why.

If we don’t learn that we can speak freely and openly then how wil, we change anything at all?

eddie wrote:I voted for Political Correctness. I’ll tell you why.

If we don’t learn that we can speak freely and openly then how wil, we change anything at all?

Well, free speech in America hasn't done much to fix climate change. We're still speeding in a car toward the edge of a cliff, arguing over which radio station to listen to.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

eddie wrote:I voted for Political Correctness. I’ll tell you why.

If we don’t learn that we can speak freely and openly then how wil we change anything at all?

Well, free speech in America hasn't done much to fix climate change. We're still speeding in a car toward the edge of a cliff, arguing over which radio station to listen to.

I don’t think real feee speech exists anywhere. People are mostly too afraid, too tired or too drunk to even think about what they really think.

Communication is the key that starts the ignition to all other problems, in my humble opinion.

eddie wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

eddie wrote:I voted for Political Correctness. I’ll tell you why.

If we don’t learn that we can speak freely and openly then how wil we change anything at all?

Well, free speech in America hasn't done much to fix climate change. We're still speeding in a car toward the edge of a cliff, arguing over which radio station to listen to.

I don’t think real feee speech exists anywhere. People are mostly too afraid, too tired or too drunk to even think about what they really think.

Communication is the key that starts the ignition to all other problems, in my humble opinion.

Okay, but I think that the entire world could be run by a tyrannical dictator who didn't allow any freedom whatsoever, and climate change would still be the more pressing problem.

We have time to sort out social ills; we're running out of time to fix climate change.

eddie wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Well, free speech in America hasn't done much to fix climate change. We're still speeding in a car toward the edge of a cliff, arguing over which radio station to listen to.

I don’t think real feee speech exists anywhere. People are mostly too afraid, too tired or too drunk to even think about what they really think.

that's baloney edds

besides, whilst mankind continues to fuck up the planet, through greed, ignorance, laziness and pure fuckwittery, i'm not concerned about what they think they can or cannot say

eddie wrote:I voted for Political Correctness. I’ll tell you why.

If we don’t learn that we can speak freely and openly then how wil, we change anything at all?

Political correctness is the gag that'll see us all going to hell in handcart. Those kids in Rotherham know all about that.

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:I voted for Political Correctness. I’ll tell you why.

If we don’t learn that we can speak freely and openly then how wil, we change anything at all?

Political correctness is the gag that'll see us all going to hell in handcart.  Those kids in Rotherham know all about that.

PC issues really only affect a tiny percentage of people in the world. Climate change will affect 100 percent of the world's population.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Political correctness is the gag that'll see us all going to hell in handcart.  Those kids in Rotherham know all about that.

PC issues really only affect a tiny percentage of people in the world. Climate change will affect 100 percent of the world's population.

Do you think China gives a shit? Despite the Kyoto Protocol, industrial greenhouse emissions are still rising. In just five provinces more dioxide is emitted than in any other country in the world. As a consequence, Beijing has experienced, in recent years, constant red alerts for environmental pollution. And America is second in line for being the worst offender. Japan is the biggest consumer of fossil fuels in the world and the fifth largest emitter of greenhouse gases. This situation is due to its high level of urban development and industry that seems to care little for nature.

And then there's India. When people are excruciatingly poor, they don't bother their heads with the environment. Anymore then they do with the state of the planet or animal rights.

HoratioTarr wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Political correctness is the gag that'll see us all going to hell in handcart.  Those kids in Rotherham know all about that.

PC issues really only affect a tiny percentage of people in the world. Climate change will affect 100 percent of the world's population.

Do you think China gives a shit?   Despite the Kyoto Protocol,  industrial greenhouse emissions are still rising.  In just five provinces more dioxide is emitted than in any other country in the world.   As a consequence, Beijing has experienced, in recent years, constant red alerts for environmental pollution.  And America is second in line for being the worst offender.  Japan is the biggest consumer of fossil fuels in the world and the fifth largest emitter of greenhouse gases. This situation is due to its high level of urban development and industry that seems to care little for nature.

And then there's India.   When people are excruciatingly poor, they don't bother their heads with the environment.  Anymore then they do with the state of the planet or animal rights.

China gives FAR more of a shit about Climate Change than it does PC I promise you.

They are at least working on renewables, they couldn't give a shit who people offend.

People who voted Political Correctness are ultimately hyper ignorant to global problems and perhaps too narrow minded to see beyond their own national headlines.

The world could explode in a nuclear apocalypse, be ravaged by some biological epidemic, or lose 20% of its land to rising sea levels...

... But fuck who cares? as long as we get to call a spade a spade

HoratioTarr wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Political correctness is the gag that'll see us all going to hell in handcart.  Those kids in Rotherham know all about that.

PC issues really only affect a tiny percentage of people in the world. Climate change will affect 100 percent of the world's population.

Do you think China gives a shit?   Despite the Kyoto Protocol,  industrial greenhouse emissions are still rising.  In just five provinces more dioxide is emitted than in any other country in the world.   As a consequence, Beijing has experienced, in recent years, constant red alerts for environmental pollution.  And America is second in line for being the worst offender.  Japan is the biggest consumer of fossil fuels in the world and the fifth largest emitter of greenhouse gases. This situation is due to its high level of urban development and industry that seems to care little for nature.

And then there's India.   When people are excruciatingly poor, they don't bother their heads with the environment.  Anymore then they do with the state of the planet or animal rights.

And?

So?

Climate Change in my opinion.

We’ve always had terrorism of one sort or another since the beginning of humans but just called it different names e.g. war, crusades, invasion etc...

We’ve always had biological catastrophes, e.g. plague, flu pandemics, diseases such as polio, famine and climate change has led to even more.

PC is such a first world problem and won’t affect 95% of the world’s populations. It’s not going to kill anyone is it?

Nuclear Armageddon is probably more remote now than ever before. Not even batshit crazy dictators are going to push the button because they will die or suffer too.

Poverty again has always been present but it will get much much worse because of Climate Change.

Cass wrote:Climate Change in my opinion.

We’ve always had terrorism of one sort or another since the beginning of humans but just called it different names e.g. war, crusades, invasion etc...

We’ve always had biological catastrophes, e.g. plague, flu pandemics, diseases such as polio, famine and climate change has led to even more.

PC is such a first world problem and won’t affect 95% of the world’s populations. It’s not going to kill anyone is it?

Nuclear Armageddon is probably more remote now than ever before. Not even batshit crazy dictators are going to push the button because they will die or suffer too.

Poverty again has always been present but it will get much much worse because of Climate Change.

Thank you!

Spoken like someone who's actually thought this through

Please post more!

Eilzel wrote:

Cass wrote:Climate Change in my opinion.

We’ve always had terrorism of one sort or another since the beginning of humans but just called it different names e.g. war, crusades, invasion etc...

We’ve always had biological catastrophes, e.g. plague, flu pandemics, diseases such as polio, famine and climate change has led to even more.

PC is such a first world problem and won’t affect 95% of the world’s populations. It’s not going to kill anyone is it?

Nuclear Armageddon is probably more remote now than ever before. Not even batshit crazy dictators are going to push the button because they will die or suffer too.

Poverty again has always been present but it will get much much worse because of Climate Change.

Thank you!

Spoken like someone who's actually thought this through

Please post more!  

Cheers. It’s because I mostly read history to be honest. It’s almost like one of those riddles in a way.

An interesting aside, we humans have caused it all one way or another. Sad.

Cass wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Cass wrote:Climate Change in my opinion.

We’ve always had terrorism of one sort or another since the beginning of humans but just called it different names e.g. war, crusades, invasion etc...

We’ve always had biological catastrophes, e.g. plague, flu pandemics, diseases such as polio, famine and climate change has led to even more.

PC is such a first world problem and won’t affect 95% of the world’s populations. It’s not going to kill anyone is it?

Nuclear Armageddon is probably more remote now than ever before. Not even batshit crazy dictators are going to push the button because they will die or suffer too.

Poverty again has always been present but it will get much much worse because of Climate Change.

Thank you!

Spoken like someone who's actually thought this through

Please post more!  

Cheers. It’s because I mostly read history to be honest. It’s almost like one of those riddles in a way.

An interesting aside, we humans have caused it all one way or another. Sad.

Very sad, and saddest of all is that we never seem to learn.

Having a good grasp of history is very useful in putting modern problems into prespective, so fully agree on the reasoning there.

Eilzel wrote:

Cass wrote:Climate Change in my opinion.

We’ve always had terrorism of one sort or another since the beginning of humans but just called it different names e.g. war, crusades, invasion etc...

We’ve always had biological catastrophes, e.g. plague, flu pandemics, diseases such as polio, famine and climate change has led to even more.

PC is such a first world problem and won’t affect 95% of the world’s populations. It’s not going to kill anyone is it?

Nuclear Armageddon is probably more remote now than ever before. Not even batshit crazy dictators are going to push the button because they will die or suffer too.

Poverty again has always been present but it will get much much worse because of Climate Change.

Thank you!

Spoken like someone who's actually thought this through

Please post more!  

Just because someone agrees with you doesn’t mean everyone else is wrong or hasnt thought it through.
I took the option PC also as “free speech”, changing our words and thoughts...and that’s far more dangerous than anything else.

A certain amount of climate change is natural and the rest we can solve.
Society getting more muted and robotic? Fucking scary.

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Cass wrote:Climate Change in my opinion.

We’ve always had terrorism of one sort or another since the beginning of humans but just called it different names e.g. war, crusades, invasion etc...

We’ve always had biological catastrophes, e.g. plague, flu pandemics, diseases such as polio, famine and climate change has led to even more.

PC is such a first world problem and won’t affect 95% of the world’s populations. It’s not going to kill anyone is it?

Nuclear Armageddon is probably more remote now than ever before. Not even batshit crazy dictators are going to push the button because they will die or suffer too.

Poverty again has always been present but it will get much much worse because of Climate Change.

Thank you!

Spoken like someone who's actually thought this through

Please post more!  

Just because someone agrees with you doesn’t mean everyone else is wrong or hasnt thought it through.
I took the option PC also as “free speech”, changing our words and thoughts...and that’s far more dangerous than anything else.

A certain amount of climate change is natural and the rest we can solve.
Society getting more muted and robotic? Fucking scary.

Did I say everyone else is wrong?

I actually think Vic's idea of biological epidemics is also sadly likely. My only reason for disagreeing is as Cass says, we generally find a way of dealing with viruses.

I also appreciate the very slight threat of political correctness - but is really is slight. People are killed by terrorism, starve through poverty, suffer with diseases, lose their homes to Climate Change: they can't say a few words due to Political Correctness - it can by a problem, but it isn't in the same ballpark imo. BUT, I'd love to discuss the idea

How many countries do you think are actually affected by Political Correctness? How many do you think are/will be affected by Climate Change?

To give just ONE example - a country like Kiribati may CEASE TO EXIST as a result of Climate Change, I'm guessing you didn't know that, but that is an entire country that risks being wiped out. How many countries will be wiped out by Political Correctness?

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t26734-one-man-sharia-law-councils-dealing-with-religious-divorce-cases-are-discriminatory-to-women-islamic-scholar-warns

This wouldn’t happen if we had free speech.

Ps I’d like to change your option of PC to Free speech.

eddie wrote:http://www.newsfixboard.com/t26734-one-man-sharia-law-councils-dealing-with-religious-divorce-cases-are-discriminatory-to-women-islamic-scholar-warns

This wouldn’t happen if we had free speech.

Ps I’d like to change your option of PC to Free speech.

I'll add Free Speech as an option, but they aren't the same thing.

PS: You can now cancel your vote and revote

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t26738-there-s-still-a-huge-performance-gap-between-rich-students-and-poor-students-u-s-study-finds

This wouldn’t happen if we had free speech.
Think of anything where the American public is controlled by the rich bullies...and how they don’t really have a voice that is listened to.

The root of any problems imo starts with people not having a voice.

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:http://www.newsfixboard.com/t26734-one-man-sharia-law-councils-dealing-with-religious-divorce-cases-are-discriminatory-to-women-islamic-scholar-warns

This wouldn’t happen if we had free speech.

Ps I’d like to change your option of PC to Free speech.

I'll add Free Speech as an option, but they aren't the same thing.

Being made to be PC is the same as being told to shut up ergo NO FREE SPEECH

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:http://www.newsfixboard.com/t26734-one-man-sharia-law-councils-dealing-with-religious-divorce-cases-are-discriminatory-to-women-islamic-scholar-warns

This wouldn’t happen if we had free speech.

Ps I’d like to change your option of PC to Free speech.

I'll add Free Speech as an option, but they aren't the same thing.

Being made to be PC is the same as being told to shut up ergo NO FREE SPEECH

I'm sorry but there is a difference, PC is very specific. People conflate them all the time though. I'd say PC could be seen as an aspect of Free Speech, but PC is often claimed as a massive problem in and of itself, so deserves to be separate.

Thailand doesn't have Free Speech.
China doesn't.
Many Arab countries don't.

The UK does, and it is PC.

In Thailand you go to jail for saying the wrong thing about the wrong people. But Thailand is NOT a PC country.

Anyway, I really do want to discuss this, so would appreciate your answer to these questions:

I appreciate the very slight threat of political correctness - but is really is slight. People are killed by terrorism, starve through poverty, suffer with diseases, lose their homes to Climate Change: they can't say a few words due to Political Correctness - it can by a problem, but it isn't in the same ballpark imo. BUT, I'd love to discuss the idea

How many countries do you think are actually affected by Political Correctness? How many do you think are/will be affected by Climate Change?

To give just ONE example - a country like Kiribati may CEASE TO EXIST as a result of Climate Change, I'm guessing you didn't know that, but that is an entire country that risks being wiped out. How many countries will be wiped out by Political Correctness?

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thank you!

Spoken like someone who's actually thought this through

Please post more!  

Just because someone agrees with you doesn’t mean everyone else is wrong or hasnt thought it through.
I took the option PC also as “free speech”, changing our words and thoughts...and that’s far more dangerous than anything else.

A certain amount of climate change is natural and the rest we can solve.
Society getting more muted and robotic? Fucking scary.

Yes.

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thank you!

Spoken like someone who's actually thought this through

Please post more!  

Just because someone agrees with you doesn’t mean everyone else is wrong or hasnt thought it through.
I took the option PC also as “free speech”, changing our words and thoughts...and that’s far more dangerous than anything else.

A certain amount of climate change is natural and the rest we can solve.
Society getting more muted and robotic? Fucking scary.

Yes.

I agree. That 'idea' is dreadful.

But I must be missing something. I don't know many people who feel compelled not to say what they think. I don't think anyone on here is like that. I'm certainly not like that. And it's not the case among my friends and family either.

Do you know lots of people (personally) who are becoming muted and robotic?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:Sovereign debt and budgets.  

Most of the West is facing a serious issue with population shifts that are going to put huge strains on budgets.

Western countries have not reproduced at a rate to support the growing number of older people not working.

Japan is already experiencing it, and there GDP shows it.

Simply put, there will not be enough worker bees to support the hive in the coming decades. As one can see in Venezuela today, none of the other problems matter when you are eating dogs. No one in Venezuela gives a fuck about climate change right now.
   

I agree to your first point, but the reasoning behind this is absurd when you base this on population and GDP, when taking India and china into account. As that renders your argument redundent

To then factor this to failed  authoritarian socialism in Venezuela. Next to China and India embracing capitalism. Is absurd

I agree nobody right now makes climate change their priority, but to claim tha western countries have not grown to support the elderly. When they have done so by opening the door to younger immigration. Shows that to be emphatically a lie. Due to the view to adrdress the age gap balance, by wanting younger people to settle here

Hark the Libertarian, who rightly sees faults in policies, but offers no actual solutions

If the West collapses, it will drag down the rest of the planet, including China and India. These types of collapses usually lead to some sort of authoritarian regimes and civil war.  

Economic collapse needs a scapegoat.  

Do you really need fo be told the solution for too much debt and spending? 

As for the population declines, those can be partially dealt with, with more immigration and increased birth rates which a few European countries are pushing now.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

eddie wrote:I voted for Political Correctness. I’ll tell you why.

If we don’t learn that we can speak freely and openly then how wil, we change anything at all?

Well, free speech in America hasn't done much to fix climate change. We're still speeding in a car toward the edge of a cliff, arguing over which radio station to listen to.

Free speech in America isn't going to make India and China stop trashing the planet.  

It will allow us to talk about it, unlike in China.  

What are you willing to do to countries that sign an agreement and ignore it?

Maddog wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Well, free speech in America hasn't done much to fix climate change. We're still speeding in a car toward the edge of a cliff, arguing over which radio station to listen to.

Free speech in America isn't going to make India and China stop trashing the planet.  

It will allow us to talk about it, unlike in China.  

What are you willing to do to countries that sign an agreement and ignore it?

You mean like the USA  ?!?

Maddog wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

eddie wrote:I voted for Political Correctness. I’ll tell you why.

If we don’t learn that we can speak freely and openly then how wil, we change anything at all?

Well, free speech in America hasn't done much to fix climate change. We're still speeding in a car toward the edge of a cliff, arguing over which radio station to listen to.

Free speech in America isn't going to make India and China stop trashing the planet.  

It will allow us to talk about it, unlike in China.  

What are you willing to do to countries that sign an agreement and ignore it?

I think economic sanctions by the countries that take climate change seriously should be enough to bring them around.

If it's not already too late and we're not already screwed, that is. Which is quite possible.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Free speech in America isn't going to make India and China stop trashing the planet.  

It will allow us to talk about it, unlike in China.  

What are you willing to do to countries that sign an agreement and ignore it?

I think economic sanctions by the countries that take climate change seriously should be enough to bring them around.

If it's not already too late and we're not already screwed, that is. Which is quite possible.

Has sanctions changed Iran or Russia?

You're being naïve.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Free speech in America isn't going to make India and China stop trashing the planet.  

It will allow us to talk about it, unlike in China.  

What are you willing to do to countries that sign an agreement and ignore it?

You mean like the USA  ?!?

We didn't ignore it per se.

We just said it was nonsense, after following it for a few years.

But that is a good example of how countries will stop following it, as soon as they realize others aren't either.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Free speech in America isn't going to make India and China stop trashing the planet.  

It will allow us to talk about it, unlike in China.  

What are you willing to do to countries that sign an agreement and ignore it?

You mean like the USA  ?!?

We didn't ignore it per se.

We just said it was nonsense, after following it for a few years.  

But that is a good example of how countries will stop following it, as soon as they realize others aren't either.  

Anyway, this thread isn't about how to solve problems, but about choosing what you think is the biggest one.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

I agree to your first point, but the reasoning behind this is absurd when you base this on population and GDP, when taking India and china into account. As that renders your argument redundent

To then factor this to failed  authoritarian socialism in Venezuela. Next to China and India embracing capitalism. Is absurd

I agree nobody right now makes climate change their priority, but to claim tha western countries have not grown to support the elderly. When they have done so by opening the door to younger immigration. Shows that to be emphatically a lie. Due to the view to adrdress the age gap balance, by wanting younger people to settle here

Hark the Libertarian, who rightly sees faults in policies, but offers no actual solutions

If the West collapses, it will drag down the rest of the planet, including China and India. These types of collapses usually lead to some sort of authoritarian regimes and civil war.  

Economic collapse needs a scapegoat.  

Do you really need fo be told the solution for too much debt and spending? 

As for the population declines, those can be partially dealt with, with more immigration and increased birth rates which a few European countries are pushing now.

That is a big if Maddog

What many are rightly saying about how more and western societies are being denied the very fabrics and aspects of secularism and Liberal values. With them being replaced by autocratic and regressive values.

I certainly do not want to live in a society that is clearly heading that way

@Eilzel, Cass and Ben

I very much am concerned about cilmate change, but again what are people themselves actually doing about this.

Most will never give up the things they believe they need to use daily.

I mean I love meat, yet I know the farming methods with meat, are a massive strain on the climate. So are cars and why I will continue to say. Those shouting loudest here, do the bare minimum themselves to combat climate change. As many are not willing to sacrifice and give up the things they have come to see as a necessity. Which i would question are they. Most people think and expect Governements to act and as seen. Only a few nations are miles ahead of other nations on this. Unless the world unites on this, the human race is very much fucked

Didge yes it’s complicated and people are starting to change. It’s going to be a long haul no doubt about it but we have to start somewhere.

Personally we recycle as much as we can, have reusable bags, hardly use clingfilm at all anymore and wash and reuse small plastic bags till they have holes, do not use those plastic bags at grocery stores for fruit and veg, we are looking into solar for our house, have cut down on meat consumption, try to buy local and sustainable whenever possible, conserve energy and water as much as possible, don’t but any unnecessary items or even everyday appliances unless they are completely broken, don’t give out Christmas cards and have gone paperless wherever possible etc...Yes it takes a bit of organizing and thinking and educating. But I do think more and more people and countries are coming on board.

I agree totally that all the countries must try and unite or the planet will be fucked.

Cass wrote:Didge yes it’s complicated and people are starting to change. It’s going to be a long haul no doubt about it but we have to start somewhere.

Personally we recycle as much as we can, have reusable bags, hardly use clingfilm at all anymore and wash and reuse small plastic bags till they have holes, do not use those plastic bags at grocery stores for fruit and veg, we are looking into solar for our house, have cut down on meat consumption, try to buy local and sustainable whenever possible, conserve energy and water as much as possible, don’t but any unnecessary items or even everyday appliances unless they are completely broken, don’t give out Christmas cards and have gone paperless wherever possible etc...Yes it takes a bit of organizing and thinking and educating. But I do think more and more people and countries  are coming on board.

I agree totally that all the countries must try and unite or the planet will be fucked.

Fair play me lady and I have no doubt that you do play your part, but unless everyone gets on board. Being as many expect everyone else to do so or resolve this. Then expecting governements to take the lead, when people themselves are not doing so. Is why the problem continually grows.

phildidge wrote:

Cass wrote:Didge yes it’s complicated and people are starting to change. It’s going to be a long haul no doubt about it but we have to start somewhere.

Personally we recycle as much as we can, have reusable bags, hardly use clingfilm at all anymore and wash and reuse small plastic bags till they have holes, do not use those plastic bags at grocery stores for fruit and veg, we are looking into solar for our house, have cut down on meat consumption, try to buy local and sustainable whenever possible, conserve energy and water as much as possible, don’t but any unnecessary items or even everyday appliances unless they are completely broken, don’t give out Christmas cards and have gone paperless wherever possible etc...Yes it takes a bit of organizing and thinking and educating. But I do think more and more people and countries  are coming on board.

I agree totally that all the countries must try and unite or the planet will be fucked.

Fair play me lady and I have no doubt that you do play your part, but unless everyone gets on board. Being as many expect everyone else to do so or resolve this.

You got that right. Complacency plays a huge part in combating this issue as well as the well if they aren’t doing it why should I thinking.

Funnily enough I have found over here that poorer people can be best at recycling sometimes. They keep hold of everything in case it will be useful it the future, as well as not be able to afford trash pickup or dump fees. It may not look pretty, but it’s different to just being dirty or lazy.

Cass wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Fair play me lady and I have no doubt that you do play your part, but unless everyone gets on board. Being as many expect everyone else to do so or resolve this.

You got that right. Complacency plays a huge part in combating this issue as well as the well if they aren’t doing it why should I thinking.

Funnily enough I have found over here that poorer people can be best at recycling sometimes. They keep hold of everything in case it will be useful it the future, as well as not be able to afford trash pickup or dump fees.  It may not look pretty, but it’s different to just being dirty or lazy.

That is interesting and maybe and not sure, but do they live in areas where more and more climate change. Has brought about more adverse weather conditions where they live? As they are less well off and maybe because such adverse wether conditions. Effect them far worse. They are sitting up and listening to the problems. Sad that it might actually be the reason why. Truth being told. The US populace is fairly good in providing funds and resources for people that suffer such problems

https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3260/Iowa-Farmers-Send-Relief-To-Nebraska-Flood-Victims

Have to go, so catch you later Me lady

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:


If the West collapses, it will drag down the rest of the planet, including China and India. These types of collapses usually lead to some sort of authoritarian regimes and civil war.  

Economic collapse needs a scapegoat.  

Do you really need fo be told the solution for too much debt and spending? 

As for the population declines, those can be partially dealt with, with more immigration and increased birth rates which a few European countries are pushing now.

That is a big if Maddog

What many are rightly saying about how more and western societies are being denied the very fabrics and aspects of secularism and Liberal values. With them being replaced by autocratic and regressive values.

I certainly do not want to live in a society that is clearly heading that way

@Eilzel, Cass and Ben

I very much am concerned about cilmate change, but again what are people themselves actually doing about this.

Most will never give up the things they believe they need to use daily.

I mean I love meat, yet I know the farming methods with meat, are a massive strain on the climate. So are cars and why I will continue to say. Those shouting loudest here, do the bare minimum themselves to combat climate change. As many are not willing to sacrifice and give up the things they have come to see as a necessity. Which i would question are they. Most people think and expect Governements to act and as seen. Only a few nations are miles ahead of other nations on this. Unless the world unites on this, the human race is very much fucked

Is it a big if? 

It's really just a math problem. Our debt is growing exponentially. The number of people not working while the number not working continues to grow.  The US has trillions in unfunded mandates. No one has a clue how we will pay for them.  

The Finnish  government resigned a week ago because they cant solve the problem they have with these issues. 

We have a huge problem in the West. People expect more from their government while their are less workers to provide that "something".

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

That is a big if Maddog

What many are rightly saying about how more and western societies are being denied the very fabrics and aspects of secularism and Liberal values. With them being replaced by autocratic and regressive values.

I certainly do not want to live in a society that is clearly heading that way

@Eilzel, Cass and Ben

I very much am concerned about cilmate change, but again what are people themselves actually doing about this.

Most will never give up the things they believe they need to use daily.

I mean I love meat, yet I know the farming methods with meat, are a massive strain on the climate. So are cars and why I will continue to say. Those shouting loudest here, do the bare minimum themselves to combat climate change. As many are not willing to sacrifice and give up the things they have come to see as a necessity. Which i would question are they. Most people think and expect Governements to act and as seen. Only a few nations are miles ahead of other nations on this. Unless the world unites on this, the human race is very much fucked

Is it a big if? 

It's really just a math problem. Our debt is growing exponentially. The number of people not working while the number not working continues to grow.  The US has trillions in unfunded mandates. No one has a clue how we will pay for them.  

The Finnish  government resigned a week ago because they cant solve the problem they have with these issues. 

We have a huge problem in the West. People expect more from their government while their are less workers to provide that "something".

Does it?

As far as I can tell the number of people working is increasing and the number of people not working is decreasing

Like I said a big what if

Eilzel wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thank you!

Spoken like someone who's actually thought this through

Please post more!  

Just because someone agrees with you doesn’t mean everyone else is wrong or hasnt thought it through.
I took the option PC also as “free speech”, changing our words and thoughts...and that’s far more dangerous than anything else.

A certain amount of climate change is natural and the rest we can solve.
Society getting more muted and robotic? Fucking scary.

Yes.

I agree. That 'idea' is dreadful.

But I must be missing something. I don't know many people who feel compelled not to say what they think. I don't think anyone on here is like that. I'm certainly not like that. And it's not the case among my friends and family either.

Do you know lots of people (personally) who are becoming muted and robotic?

Bumped for Horatio

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Is it a big if? 

It's really just a math problem. Our debt is growing exponentially. The number of people not working while the number not working continues to grow.  The US has trillions in unfunded mandates. No one has a clue how we will pay for them.  

The Finnish  government resigned a week ago because they cant solve the problem they have with these issues. 

We have a huge problem in the West. People expect more from their government while their are less workers to provide that "something".

Does it?

As far as I can tell the number of people working is increasing and the number of people not working is decreasing

Like I said a big what if

People are living longer and having far fewer children.  

This is actually a ticking time bomb that is going largley y unnoticed except by the bean counters. Japan is already showing signs if problems.  A welfare state cant support grandma and grandpa with only one or two grandchildren.

It's a funny commercial, but it shows what's happening in Western Europe.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

I agree to your first point, but the reasoning behind this is absurd when you base this on population and GDP, when taking India and china into account. As that renders your argument redundent

To then factor this to failed  authoritarian socialism in Venezuela. Next to China and India embracing capitalism. Is absurd

I agree nobody right now makes climate change their priority, but to claim tha western countries have not grown to support the elderly. When they have done so by opening the door to younger immigration. Shows that to be emphatically a lie. Due to the view to adrdress the age gap balance, by wanting younger people to settle here

Hark the Libertarian, who rightly sees faults in policies, but offers no actual solutions

If the West collapses, it will drag down the rest of the planet, including China and India. These types of collapses usually lead to some sort of authoritarian regimes and civil war.  

Economic collapse needs a scapegoat.  

Do you really need fo be told the solution for too much debt and spending? 

As for the population declines, those can be partially dealt with, with more immigration and increased birth rates which a few European countries are pushing now.

That is a big if Maddog

What many are rightly saying about how more and western societies are being denied the very fabrics and aspects of secularism and Liberal values. With them being replaced by autocratic and regressive values.

I certainly do not want to live in a society that is clearly heading that way

@Eilzel, Cass and Ben

I very much am concerned about cilmate change, but again what are people themselves actually doing about this.

Most will never give up the things they believe they need to use daily.

I mean I love meat, yet I know the farming methods with meat, are a massive strain on the climate. So are cars and why I will continue to say. Those shouting loudest here, do the bare minimum themselves to combat climate change. As many are not willing to sacrifice and give up the things they have come to see as a necessity. Which i would question are they. Most people think and expect Governements to act and as seen. Only a few nations are miles ahead of other nations on this. Unless the world unites on this, the human race is very much fucked

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But the question you posed in your title was: "The Biggest Problem for Modern Civilisation?" and you didn't mention solving said problem.

Isn't the difficulty of solving the problem a major part of what makes a problem "big", though?

I'd argue that the "bigness" of a problem is determined by, in no particular order, 1) how severely it will harm people, 2) how many people it will harm and 3) how difficult it will be to solve.

Seeing as climate change will 1) bring significant harm to 2) most people and 3) the solution would require the majority of the world to overhaul its lifestyle, I can't imagine a bigger problem.

Let's subject terrorism to the same criteria: 1) The severity of harm done by a terrorist attack can be anything from emotional trauma to a minor injury to death. 2) Very few people will ever be involved in a terrorist attack. 3) We know of a handful of policy changes that would drastically reduce terrorism, but several will be difficult to implement.

Therefore, terrorism is not a massive problem -- call it moderate. If it was affecting billions of people, that would make it a bigger problem, but it doesn't affect nearly that many people.

The common cold: 1) People are mostly inconvenienced, but nobody dies. 2) It will probably affect nearly every human being. 3) There's no cure.

So the common cold becomes a small problem since it doesn't do significant harm. If it was usually deadly, it would be the biggest problem in the world.

TL/DR: One criteria (among several) that makes a problem "big" is the question of how difficult it would be to solve the problem.

Maddog wrote:A Green New Deal proposal backed by numerous Democrats failed to advance in the Senate on Tuesday as Democrats protested what they called a political show vote orchestrated by majority Republicans.
The nonbinding resolution, which calls on the United States to make an ambitious effort to slash its use of fossil fuels to fight climate change, fell short in a procedural vote. The Senate did not proceed to debating the measure, as 57 senators voted against it and 43 Democrats and independents who caucus with them — nearly all of the Democratic caucus — voted "present." Four senators who vote with Democrats — Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Doug Jones of Alabama and independent Angus King of Maine — voted against the resolution.
By voting "present," Democrats hoped not to go on the record on a bill that had no realistic chance of passing, even if they support the concept of a Green New Deal. The six Democratic senators running for president next year — who co-sponsored the original resolution introduced by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. — did not take a position on the measure Tuesday.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/aocs-green-new-deal-dies-in-mcconnell-led-senate-vote.html


57-0. 

What was the Senate vote on going to war with Iraq back in 2003?

Depends what they are working at though doesn't it. Then its how much wages are and how much is then going to the treasury. In some instances you have people working a number of hours in places like Game and sportswear shops then someone else comes in and does a few more hours, its practically job sharing so it's only really one job but probably counts for two or three people being 'employed' in the figures. People like this will hardly swell the coffers, then we are told we need more people to come here to work to pay more taxes which then requires more government expenditure.