"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
He's really not:
The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.
The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
Still think that we should kill off a couple of billion, just to be on the safe side. The Chinese tried but barely made a dent.
Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?
Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.
I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.
But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?
Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.
The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.
Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.
But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.
And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
I keep returning to the same point
Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won
For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues
We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
Utter nonsense.
What is the limit on the number of people that Earth can support? 10 billion? 20 billion? A trillion?
The planet is already substantially ecologically denuded and the situation continues to deteriorate. This is entirely the fault of human beings. Quite how things would be worse if men tied a knot in it after the first kid and kept doing so until there were only about three billion of us left I don't know. That would only take the world population back to where it was circa 1960. Civilization would continue. It'd have a much better chance of continuing than under the course apparently advocated by Mr Musk.
I suspect that we're not even close to the limit, and when we get anywhere near it, there will be other planets.
Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?
Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.
I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.
But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?
Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.
The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.
Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.
But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.
And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
I agree. It would be great if either Truss thought about more than tactics, and greater still if cynical tactics fail. I'm still not holding my breath.
@Euan_MacDonald Russian media say 65-year-old Elena Belova, who set fire to a Russian military official's car in Moscow, was kidnapped by Ukrainian special forces, hypnotized and taught by them how to burn cars.
An absurd fairy tale to mask public opposition to the Kremlin's war on Ukraine.
Meanwhile in falling apart Britain, school chiefs are now staring into their own budget abyss. Ken baker and Justine Greening both demanding Trusster does something to help schools instead of just pandering to "grammar school was nice when I attended in the 1930s" members.
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
Utter nonsense.
What is the limit on the number of people that Earth can support? 10 billion? 20 billion? A trillion?
The planet is already substantially ecologically denuded and the situation continues to deteriorate. This is entirely the fault of human beings. Quite how things would be worse if men tied a knot in it after the first kid and kept doing so until there were only about three billion of us left I don't know. That would only take the world population back to where it was circa 1960. Civilization would continue. It'd have a much better chance of continuing than under the course apparently advocated by Mr Musk.
It would be very bad because we'd be left with a very large number of aged people having their bottoms wiped by a small number of people of working age.
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
Utter nonsense.
What is the limit on the number of people that Earth can support? 10 billion? 20 billion? A trillion?
The planet is already substantially ecologically denuded and the situation continues to deteriorate. This is entirely the fault of human beings. Quite how things would be worse if men tied a knot in it after the first kid and kept doing so until there were only about three billion of us left I don't know. That would only take the world population back to where it was circa 1960. Civilization would continue. It'd have a much better chance of continuing than under the course apparently advocated by Mr Musk.
It would be very bad because we'd be left with a very large number of aged people having their bottoms wiped by a small number of people of working age.
Automate that shit. You can't just keep breeding bottom wipers
Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won
For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues
We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
I agree - one interview makes no odds.
I suspect as soon as she is proclaimed/announced Prime Minister, the "selling" of Liz Truss will begin in earnest with the pro-Conservative media falling over themselves to present insubstantial stories of what she was like at school, her family, her favourite food and where she buys her clothes.
The presentational/image/marketing process will be considered more important than any policy announcements. Presumably she has an idea of the immediate Cabinet and will form that within 24 hours of returning from the Palace and from then on it will be a blizzard of announcements, pledges and promises.
The idea is the poor old electorate will believe we have a "new" Government and a "new" Prime Minister much as the lines old when Johnson took over - I suspect it will be a much harder sell this time.
@yarotrof The most prominent collaborator assassinated since the Russian invasion : Aleksey Kovalyov, a Ukrainian lawmaker from Zelensky’s party who switched sides to become deputy head of the Russian administration in Kherson, overseeing grain theft, has been gunned down in his home.
Not sad to here that, but I don't know exactly how legal theses assassinations are.
That's a really interesting question. I doubt many people would argue that Reinhard Heydrich was not worthy of assassination (leaving aside Germany's hideous reprisals), but are quislings making themselves parties to the war, and therefore combatants? That's a really thorny issue IMO, especially when the definition of 'quisling' is expanded.
None of this is really of use in considering the current situation, though. The Russian invasion is illegal; as occupiers, they have not followed the international laws (such as they are) covering the conduct of occupying armies. And I think there are very few, if any cases of members if resistances being prosecuted after their countries have been liberated. Should the Russians capture them in the meantime, it is almost certain that the conventions regarding the trial and punishment of civilian resistors will not be followed.
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
He's really not:
The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.
The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
I agree it creates problems, but it's still probably a good thing on balance. The global population continuing to grow puts pressure on systems and would be more likely to push resources to some breaking point.
A steadily falling (as opposed to collapsing) global population can be managed via some mix of migration from poorer, younger countries to older, richer countries. Plus people working longer and changes to taxation.
The likes of South Korea with a incredibly low birth rate and very little immigration is setting itself up to become poorer over time though.
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
Utter nonsense.
What is the limit on the number of people that Earth can support? 10 billion? 20 billion? A trillion?
The planet is already substantially ecologically denuded and the situation continues to deteriorate. This is entirely the fault of human beings. Quite how things would be worse if men tied a knot in it after the first kid and kept doing so until there were only about three billion of us left I don't know. That would only take the world population back to where it was circa 1960. Civilization would continue. It'd have a much better chance of continuing than under the course apparently advocated by Mr Musk.
It would be very bad because we'd be left with a very large number of aged people having their bottoms wiped by a small number of people of working age.
Automate that shit. You can't just keep breeding bottom wipers
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
Utter nonsense.
What is the limit on the number of people that Earth can support? 10 billion? 20 billion? A trillion?
The planet is already substantially ecologically denuded and the situation continues to deteriorate. This is entirely the fault of human beings. Quite how things would be worse if men tied a knot in it after the first kid and kept doing so until there were only about three billion of us left I don't know. That would only take the world population back to where it was circa 1960. Civilization would continue. It'd have a much better chance of continuing than under the course apparently advocated by Mr Musk.
It would be very bad because we'd be left with a very large number of aged people having their bottoms wiped by a small number of people of working age.
Automate that shit. You can't just keep breeding bottom wipers
Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won
For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues
We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
I agree - one interview makes no odds.
I suspect as soon as she is proclaimed/announced Prime Minister, the "selling" of Liz Truss will begin in earnest with the pro-Conservative media falling over themselves to present insubstantial stories of what she was like at school, her family, her favourite food and where she buys her clothes.
The presentational/image/marketing process will be considered more important than any policy announcements. Presumably she has an idea of the immediate Cabinet and will form that within 24 hours of returning from the Palace and from then on it will be a blizzard of announcements, pledges and promises.
The idea is the poor old electorate will believe we have a "new" Government and a "new" Prime Minister much as the lines old when Johnson took over - I suspect it will be a much harder sell this time.
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
Utter nonsense.
What is the limit on the number of people that Earth can support? 10 billion? 20 billion? A trillion?
The planet is already substantially ecologically denuded and the situation continues to deteriorate. This is entirely the fault of human beings. Quite how things would be worse if men tied a knot in it after the first kid and kept doing so until there were only about three billion of us left I don't know. That would only take the world population back to where it was circa 1960. Civilization would continue. It'd have a much better chance of continuing than under the course apparently advocated by Mr Musk.
It would be very bad because we'd be left with a very large number of aged people having their bottoms wiped by a small number of people of working age.
It's surely a steady state end point you have to reach at some point though, unless we're planning exponential colonisation of the entire galaxy.
Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?
Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.
I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.
But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?
Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.
The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.
Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.
But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.
And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
I keep returning to the same point
Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won
For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues
We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
She can’t spare 30 minutes for a BBC interview . Really I don’t believe that . She chickened out as she doesn’t want to answer questions on her plans .
The Russian position in and around Kherson seems very precarious to me.
Agreed but it is a logistical squeeze using geography. It is not enough to attack on a day or so. They now need to exhaust Russian supplies and morale be keeping this attack up for long enough to achieve both. That is going to cost them a lot of men but the potential rewards are huge.
Lord Turner addresses the issue of population and birth rates here. In short, below the replacement rate is okay but you need to raise the retirement age. Once you get below 1.6/1.5 you have a real problem.
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
He's really not:
The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.
The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
It's not half as much a problem as what would happen next if people started breeding like bunnies again.
The inversion of the demographic pyramid is a very painful phenomenon but we're going to have to live through it at some point, so we might as well get it over with rather than trying to pump more babies into the population Ponzi scheme. This will end up involving the old paying for their own upkeep, through some combination of having to give up their wealth and working until they are completely physically incapable - because they can vote for inflation busting pension increases but they can't vote to make what's left of the working age population any more productive. It's just a matter of time.
We don't need an inversion of the population pyramid. The earth is perfectly capable of supporting 20, 25, maybe even 50 billion people with extremely high standards of living.
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
He's really not:
The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.
The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
It's not half as much a problem as what would happen next if people started breeding like bunnies again.
The inversion of the demographic pyramid is a very painful phenomenon but we're going to have to live through it at some point, so we might as well get it over with rather than trying to pump more babies into the population Ponzi scheme. This will end up involving the old paying for their own upkeep, through some combination of having to give up their wealth and working until they are completely physically incapable - because they can vote for inflation busting pension increases but they can't vote to make what's left of the working age population any more productive. It's just a matter of time.
We don't need an inversion of the population pyramid. The earth is perfectly capable of supporting 20, 25, maybe even 50 billion people with extremely high standards of living.
Caves if steel was a great book, arguably Asimovs best but it’s not a world I would like to live in.
Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?
Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.
I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.
But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?
Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.
The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.
Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.
But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.
And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
I keep returning to the same point
Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won
For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues
We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
She can’t spare 30 minutes for a BBC interview . Really I don’t believe that . She chickened out as she doesn’t want to answer questions on her plans .
C'mon, she's undergone ordeal by fire on GB News, that should be good enough for anyone.
So.. After Scholz's speech today about ever closer union, we'd have nipped all of this in the bud if we'd still been in the EU, right?
European leaders spoke about ever closer union when we were in the EU. It's made little or no difference.
Did you not notice the Lisbon Treaty?
Yes, that's made little or no difference either. The intention of ever closer union has been there since the initial discussions in Messina in the late 40s.
The notion of a "European Union" has been around almost since the guns stopped firing in 1945. We had a chance to be at the forefront of that but decided not to and thus our membership of the EEC (and later the EU) was always going to be flawed.
Now we're out there's nothing stopping the rest of the EU moving toward their objective of a united Europe but don't imagine they've only started talking about it because we've left. Our departure has probably helped those looking to create a united Europe or EuroFed or whatever but trying to make a cheap pro-Brexit point out of Scholz's speech is weak.
Lord Turner addresses the issue of population and birth rates here. In short, below the replacement rate is okay but you need to raise the retirement age. Once you get below 1.6/1.5 you have a real problem.
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
He's really not:
The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.
The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
It's not half as much a problem as what would happen next if people started breeding like bunnies again.
The inversion of the demographic pyramid is a very painful phenomenon but we're going to have to live through it at some point, so we might as well get it over with rather than trying to pump more babies into the population Ponzi scheme. This will end up involving the old paying for their own upkeep, through some combination of having to give up their wealth and working until they are completely physically incapable - because they can vote for inflation busting pension increases but they can't vote to make what's left of the working age population any more productive. It's just a matter of time.
We don't need an inversion of the population pyramid. The earth is perfectly capable of supporting 20, 25, maybe even 50 billion people with extremely high standards of living.
All eating artificial food grown in vats, no doubt. I'm not sure I'd want to live on that earth.
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
Utter nonsense.
What is the limit on the number of people that Earth can support? 10 billion? 20 billion? A trillion?
The planet is already substantially ecologically denuded and the situation continues to deteriorate. This is entirely the fault of human beings. Quite how things would be worse if men tied a knot in it after the first kid and kept doing so until there were only about three billion of us left I don't know. That would only take the world population back to where it was circa 1960. Civilization would continue. It'd have a much better chance of continuing than under the course apparently advocated by Mr Musk.
Eh?
We are only at the very beginning of transitioning to renewable energy. Prices for wind and solar have collapsed 75% in two decades for wind, and 95% for solar. And they will keep falling.
Battery technology is continuing to improve, so the world's land transport needs - inside our own lifetimes - are going to go from burning oil, to entirely renewable electric.
There's similar - extraordinarily - progress in other areas. I know companies working on tuning LEDs so that they can only emit light in the frequency that is used by crops for photosynthesis. The energy savings from this are immense.
More people than ever before live lives unimaginable to our predecessors. Clean water has gone from luxury to being available to four or five billion people, all in a short period of time.
We've close the hole in the ozone layer. In most modern economies, rivers are becoming cleaner than ever.
I know doomsaying is fashionable. But be on the side of the optimists. Humanity has made extraordinary steps in the last three decades, and will continue to do so. Yes, there'll be difficulties along the way. But - all in all - things are getting better.
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
He's really not:
The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.
The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
It's not half as much a problem as what would happen next if people started breeding like bunnies again.
The inversion of the demographic pyramid is a very painful phenomenon but we're going to have to live through it at some point, so we might as well get it over with rather than trying to pump more babies into the population Ponzi scheme. This will end up involving the old paying for their own upkeep, through some combination of having to give up their wealth and working until they are completely physically incapable - because they can vote for inflation busting pension increases but they can't vote to make what's left of the working age population any more productive. It's just a matter of time.
We don't need an inversion of the population pyramid. The earth is perfectly capable of supporting 20, 25, maybe even 50 billion people with extremely high standards of living.
Caves if steel was a great book, arguably Asimovs best but it’s not a world I would like to live in.
It's been a real puzzle to me why that's never been turned into a film/netflix-show. Has a decent mix of police procedural, sci-fi and politics. There is a pretty good BBC Radio adaptation but other than that nothing that I'm aware of.
Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?
Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.
I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.
But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?
Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.
The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.
Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.
But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.
And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
I keep returning to the same point
Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won
For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues
We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
She can’t spare 30 minutes for a BBC interview . Really I don’t believe that . She chickened out as she doesn’t want to answer questions on her plans .
Quite possibly and why should she before they are announced to the HOC
I expect her team are in very complex and detailed considerations and frankly avoiding the BBC interview seems sensible
Truss is just 2 % behind Starmer as best PM in tonight's poll which I do find surprising
Anyway only another couple of weeks for all to be revealed and real discussion can take place on actual measures not hypothetical ones
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
He's really not:
The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.
The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
It's not half as much a problem as what would happen next if people started breeding like bunnies again.
The inversion of the demographic pyramid is a very painful phenomenon but we're going to have to live through it at some point, so we might as well get it over with rather than trying to pump more babies into the population Ponzi scheme. This will end up involving the old paying for their own upkeep, through some combination of having to give up their wealth and working until they are completely physically incapable - because they can vote for inflation busting pension increases but they can't vote to make what's left of the working age population any more productive. It's just a matter of time.
We don't need an inversion of the population pyramid. The earth is perfectly capable of supporting 20, 25, maybe even 50 billion people with extremely high standards of living.
Really, really not true. Achievable in a Matrix scenario possibly, but. It's a wonderful time to be alive means it's a wonderful time to be a top 0.1% whitey.
So.. After Scholz's speech today about ever closer union, we'd have nipped all of this in the bud if we'd still been in the EU, right?
European leaders spoke about ever closer union when we were in the EU. It's made little or no difference.
Did you not notice the Lisbon Treaty?
Yes, that's made little or no difference either. The intention of ever closer union has been there since the initial discussions in Messina in the late 40s.
The notion of a "European Union" has been around almost since the guns stopped firing in 1945. We had a chance to be at the forefront of that but decided not to and thus our membership of the EEC (and later the EU) was always going to be flawed.
Now we're out there's nothing stopping the rest of the EU moving toward their objective of a united Europe but don't imagine they've only started talking about it because we've left. Our departure has probably helped those looking to create a united Europe or EuroFed or whatever but trying to make a cheap pro-Brexit point out of Scholz's speech is weak.
If we hadn't got out we would have been ratcheted further and further into closer union by just occasional europhile UK governments. There's no way backwards in that arrangement except out. Thank god we left when we did.
Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?
Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.
I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.
But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?
Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.
The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.
Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.
But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.
And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
I keep returning to the same point
Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won
For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues
We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
She can’t spare 30 minutes for a BBC interview . Really I don’t believe that . She chickened out as she doesn’t want to answer questions on her plans .
Quite possibly and why should she before they are announced to the HOC
I expect her team are in very complex and detailed considerations and frankly avoiding the BBC interview seems sensible
Truss is just 2 % behind Starmer as best PM in tonight's poll which I do find surprising
Anyway only another couple of weeks for all to be revealed and real discussion can take place on actual measures not hypothetical ones
You don't follow politics do you?
New PMs always get a boost, even Gordon Brown and Theresa May all got boosts which dissipated once the public got to know them.
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
Utter nonsense.
What is the limit on the number of people that Earth can support? 10 billion? 20 billion? A trillion?
The planet is already substantially ecologically denuded and the situation continues to deteriorate. This is entirely the fault of human beings. Quite how things would be worse if men tied a knot in it after the first kid and kept doing so until there were only about three billion of us left I don't know. That would only take the world population back to where it was circa 1960. Civilization would continue. It'd have a much better chance of continuing than under the course apparently advocated by Mr Musk.
Isaac Arthur (quite optimistic futurologist) has some videos about possible future earth buried away on his youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g . I'm not entirely convinced, but it's nice to hear 'we might make it'.
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
He's really not:
The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.
The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
It's not half as much a problem as what would happen next if people started breeding like bunnies again.
The inversion of the demographic pyramid is a very painful phenomenon but we're going to have to live through it at some point, so we might as well get it over with rather than trying to pump more babies into the population Ponzi scheme. This will end up involving the old paying for their own upkeep, through some combination of having to give up their wealth and working until they are completely physically incapable - because they can vote for inflation busting pension increases but they can't vote to make what's left of the working age population any more productive. It's just a matter of time.
We don't need an inversion of the population pyramid. The earth is perfectly capable of supporting 20, 25, maybe even 50 billion people with extremely high standards of living.
Really, really not true. Achievable in a Matrix scenario possibly, but. It's a wonderful time to be alive means it's a wonderful time to be a top 0.1% whitey.
Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?
Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.
I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.
But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?
Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.
The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.
Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.
But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.
And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
I keep returning to the same point
Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won
For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues
We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
She can’t spare 30 minutes for a BBC interview . Really I don’t believe that . She chickened out as she doesn’t want to answer questions on her plans .
Quite possibly and why should she before they are announced to the HOC
I expect her team are in very complex and detailed considerations and frankly avoiding the BBC interview seems sensible
Truss is just 2 % behind Starmer as best PM in tonight's poll which I do find surprising
Anyway only another couple of weeks for all to be revealed and real discussion can take place on actual measures not hypothetical ones
You don't follow politics do you?
New PMs always get a boost, even Gordon Brown and Theresa May all got boosts which dissipated once the public got to know them.
Of course I don't follow politics
I know absolutely nothing about the subject and tend to post rubbish
Starmer is certainly highly likely to become the PM after the next general election unless Truss gets a huge and sustained bounce.
The more interesting question is if he can get most seats in a hung parliament or a small majority, in which case he can ignore the SNP. Or if Truss gets a large enough bounce to ensure the Tories still win most seats even if they lose their majority but Labour and the SNP are more than the Tories and DUP. That would still make Starmer PM but with indyref2 firmly back on the agenda
Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?
Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.
I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.
But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?
Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.
The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.
Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.
But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.
And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
I keep returning to the same point
Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won
For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues
We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
She can’t spare 30 minutes for a BBC interview . Really I don’t believe that . She chickened out as she doesn’t want to answer questions on her plans .
Quite possibly and why should she before they are announced to the HOC
I expect her team are in very complex and detailed considerations and frankly avoiding the BBC interview seems sensible
Truss is just 2 % behind Starmer as best PM in tonight's poll which I do find surprising
Anyway only another couple of weeks for all to be revealed and real discussion can take place on actual measures not hypothetical ones
It says to me that Truss' team think she has it in the bag and she just needs not to slip up in the final week
Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?
Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.
I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.
But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?
Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.
The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.
Hopefully she genuinely doesn't have time. I want her to be knee deep in paperwork, takeaway pizzas, white-boards, laptops etc. with her core team, charting a brilliant course through the mess that will surprise and delight us all.
Your trust in her is touching, don't hold your breath....
Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?
Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.
I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.
But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?
Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.
The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.
Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.
But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.
And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
I keep returning to the same point
Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won
For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues
We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
She can’t spare 30 minutes for a BBC interview . Really I don’t believe that . She chickened out as she doesn’t want to answer questions on her plans .
Quite possibly and why should she before they are announced to the HOC
I expect her team are in very complex and detailed considerations and frankly avoiding the BBC interview seems sensible
Truss is just 2 % behind Starmer as best PM in tonight's poll which I do find surprising
Anyway only another couple of weeks for all to be revealed and real discussion can take place on actual measures not hypothetical ones
It says to me that Truss' team think she has it in the bag and she just needs not to slip up in the final week
She's had it in the bag for weeks though. Slipped up more than once already.
Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?
Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.
I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.
But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?
Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.
The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.
Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.
But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.
And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
I keep returning to the same point
Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won
For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues
We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
She can’t spare 30 minutes for a BBC interview . Really I don’t believe that . She chickened out as she doesn’t want to answer questions on her plans .
C'mon, she's undergone ordeal by fire on GB News, that should be good enough for anyone.
GB News are more accurate than the BBC?
PeoplePolling (on behalf of GB News!) gave Labour a 14-point lead!
Starmer is certainly highly likely to become the PM after the next general election unless Truss gets a huge and sustained bounce.
The more interesting question is if he can get most seats in a hung parliament or a small majority, in which case he can ignore the SNP. Or if Truss gets a large enough bounce to ensure the Tories still win most seats even if they lose their majority but Labour and the SNP are more than the Tories and DUP. That would still make Starmer PM but with indyref2 firmly back on the agenda
No, it would not. Starmer will oppose a second referendum under all circumstances. What’s the SNP going to do? Ally themselves (even by abstaining) to bring him down and once again become labelled the Tartan Tories? Not a chance.
There will be a second election within months just as in 1974. What would be intriguing is if it produced another well-hung (sic) Parliament.
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
He's really not:
The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.
The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
I agree it creates problems, but it's still probably a good thing on balance. The global population continuing to grow puts pressure on systems and would be more likely to push resources to some breaking point.
A steadily falling (as opposed to collapsing) global population can be managed via some mix of migration from poorer, younger countries to older, richer countries. Plus people working longer and changes to taxation.
The likes of South Korea with a incredibly low birth rate and very little immigration is setting itself up to become poorer over time though.
it's not
See my posts below!
AI is on the verge of being real AI. It will do many jobs. Maybe all of them. It will solve this. Of course it might then decide to wipe out humanity but it's a risk we have to take
AI would not have invaded Ukraine
I genuinely believe Homo sapiens is now in a race between its own innate but unmeant self-destructiveness, and the ability to fabricate AI which will save us. Might be close
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
He's really not:
The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.
The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
I agree it creates problems, but it's still probably a good thing on balance. The global population continuing to grow puts pressure on systems and would be more likely to push resources to some breaking point.
A steadily falling (as opposed to collapsing) global population can be managed via some mix of migration from poorer, younger countries to older, richer countries. Plus people working longer and changes to taxation.
The likes of South Korea with a incredibly low birth rate and very little immigration is setting itself up to become poorer over time though.
it's not
See my posts below!
AI is on the verge of being real AI. It will do many jobs. Maybe all of them. It will solve this. Of course it might then decide to wipe out humanity but it's a risk we have to take
AI would not have invaded Ukraine
I genuinely believe Homo sapiens is now in a race between its own innate but unmeant self-destructiveness, and the ability to fabricate AI which will save us. Might be close
Why would AI not have decided to invade Ukraine if it was programmed to pursue a Russian Nationalist agenda?
Starmer is certainly highly likely to become the PM after the next general election unless Truss gets a huge and sustained bounce.
The more interesting question is if he can get most seats in a hung parliament or a small majority, in which case he can ignore the SNP. Or if Truss gets a large enough bounce to ensure the Tories still win most seats even if they lose their majority but Labour and the SNP are more than the Tories and DUP. That would still make Starmer PM but with indyref2 firmly back on the agenda
No, it would not. Starmer will oppose a second referendum under all circumstances. What’s the SNP going to do? Ally themselves (even by abstaining) to bring him down and once again become labelled the Tartan Tories? Not a chance.
There will be a second election within months just as in 1974. What would be intriguing is if it produced another well-hung (sic) Parliament.
If the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament then the SNP would abstain on a confidence vote if Starmer and Truss refused them indyref2. Truss would therefore stay PM. I doubt a second election would make much difference, the 2 1974 elections just moved Labour from most seats to a tiny majority. However Labour had won most seats in even the first election
This really is the end of art as we know it. Turns out DALLE-2 was just a vague premonition
I see you've managed to buck the system by posting a troubling Dalle image as your avatar.
I couldn’t resist. Because it really looks like me. I was quite a rambunctious child
I met Ted Hughes In his later years and, flatteringly, he remembered me as a child because - as he put it - you ‘were a very noisy boy’
Actually, that avatar reminds me of the baby buried alive in the clay pot, in The Genesis Secret.
Wait.
You read a Tom Knox book?
They aren't for reading. Good god. I don't believe the author even made it all the way through.
You’re suggesting the remainder was written by a (very) rudimentary AI ?
Humanity itself is, of course, a rudimentary form of AI, or, indeed, I
It is amazing how many people who are firmly atheistic believe there is, nonetheless, something sacred about human intelligence than cannot be mimicked and bettered by a bunch of electronics. They are all molecules. They were all brought together by the "artifice" of evolution, and mutation, and random change. This time intelligence has evolved via another intelligence. So be it. Shit happens
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
He's really not:
The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.
The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
I agree it creates problems, but it's still probably a good thing on balance. The global population continuing to grow puts pressure on systems and would be more likely to push resources to some breaking point.
A steadily falling (as opposed to collapsing) global population can be managed via some mix of migration from poorer, younger countries to older, richer countries. Plus people working longer and changes to taxation.
The likes of South Korea with a incredibly low birth rate and very little immigration is setting itself up to become poorer over time though.
it's not
See my posts below!
AI is on the verge of being real AI. It will do many jobs. Maybe all of them. It will solve this. Of course it might then decide to wipe out humanity but it's a risk we have to take
AI would not have invaded Ukraine
I genuinely believe Homo sapiens is now in a race between its own innate but unmeant self-destructiveness, and the ability to fabricate AI which will save us. Might be close
Why would AI not have decided to invade Ukraine if it was programmed to pursue a Russian Nationalist agenda?
A fair and interesting point but if we reach the stage where we have superhuman AI pursuing aggressive nationalist agendas then we are totally fucked, and, indeed, we probably would have been fucked long before
I believe AI is now exhibiting signs of Turing-test style sentience, and humanity needs to gather to decide how to use it, or not use it. This is as important as climate change, and might even save the climate
It could be a unifier, which is badly needed. The robots are coming: let's work together to make them help us, not kill us
This really is the end of art as we know it. Turns out DALLE-2 was just a vague premonition
I see you've managed to buck the system by posting a troubling Dalle image as your avatar.
I couldn’t resist. Because it really looks like me. I was quite a rambunctious child
I met Ted Hughes In his later years and, flatteringly, he remembered me as a child because - as he put it - you ‘were a very noisy boy’
Actually, that avatar reminds me of the baby buried alive in the clay pot, in The Genesis Secret.
Wait.
You read a Tom Knox book?
They aren't for reading. Good god. I don't believe the author even made it all the way through.
You’re suggesting the remainder was written by a (very) rudimentary AI ?
Humanity itself is, of course, a rudimentary form of AI, or, indeed, I
It is amazing how many people who are firmly atheistic believe there is, nonetheless, something sacred about human intelligence than cannot be mimicked and bettered by a bunch of electronics. They are all molecules. They were all brought together by the "artifice" of evolution, and mutation, and random change. This time intelligence has evolved via another intelligence. So be it. Shit happens
You actually remind me of those with religion, as you seem to have an implicit belief that problems which have not yet been solved are either tractable or have already been solved.
For example, whether there is an intrinsic difference between computation, and the operation of the human brain.
So.. After Scholz's speech today about ever closer union, we'd have nipped all of this in the bud if we'd still been in the EU, right?
European leaders spoke about ever closer union when we were in the EU. It's made little or no difference.
Did you not notice the Lisbon Treaty?
Yes, that's made little or no difference either. The intention of ever closer union has been there since the initial discussions in Messina in the late 40s.
The notion of a "European Union" has been around almost since the guns stopped firing in 1945. We had a chance to be at the forefront of that but decided not to and thus our membership of the EEC (and later the EU) was always going to be flawed.
Now we're out there's nothing stopping the rest of the EU moving toward their objective of a united Europe but don't imagine they've only started talking about it because we've left. Our departure has probably helped those looking to create a united Europe or EuroFed or whatever but trying to make a cheap pro-Brexit point out of Scholz's speech is weak.
Interesting (and I think accurate) comment in and of itself but also additionally because most Europhiles on here go to great lengths to deny there was ever an intent of ever closer union resulting in a united European state.
This really is the end of art as we know it. Turns out DALLE-2 was just a vague premonition
I see you've managed to buck the system by posting a troubling Dalle image as your avatar.
I couldn’t resist. Because it really looks like me. I was quite a rambunctious child
I met Ted Hughes In his later years and, flatteringly, he remembered me as a child because - as he put it - you ‘were a very noisy boy’
Actually, that avatar reminds me of the baby buried alive in the clay pot, in The Genesis Secret.
Wait.
You read a Tom Knox book?
They aren't for reading. Good god. I don't believe the author even made it all the way through.
You’re suggesting the remainder was written by a (very) rudimentary AI ?
Humanity itself is, of course, a rudimentary form of AI, or, indeed, I
It is amazing how many people who are firmly atheistic believe there is, nonetheless, something sacred about human intelligence than cannot be mimicked and bettered by a bunch of electronics. They are all molecules. They were all brought together by the "artifice" of evolution, and mutation, and random change. This time intelligence has evolved via another intelligence. So be it. Shit happens
You actually remind me of those with religion, as you seem to have an implicit belief that problems which have not yet been solved are either tractable or have already been solved.
For example, whether there is an intrinsic difference between computation, and the operation of the human brain.
There is absolutely no difference. And I am religious!
This really is the end of art as we know it. Turns out DALLE-2 was just a vague premonition
I see you've managed to buck the system by posting a troubling Dalle image as your avatar.
I couldn’t resist. Because it really looks like me. I was quite a rambunctious child
I met Ted Hughes In his later years and, flatteringly, he remembered me as a child because - as he put it - you ‘were a very noisy boy’
Actually, that avatar reminds me of the baby buried alive in the clay pot, in The Genesis Secret.
Wait.
You read a Tom Knox book?
They aren't for reading. Good god. I don't believe the author even made it all the way through.
You’re suggesting the remainder was written by a (very) rudimentary AI ?
Humanity itself is, of course, a rudimentary form of AI, or, indeed, I
It is amazing how many people who are firmly atheistic believe there is, nonetheless, something sacred about human intelligence than cannot be mimicked and bettered by a bunch of electronics. They are all molecules. They were all brought together by the "artifice" of evolution, and mutation, and random change. This time intelligence has evolved via another intelligence. So be it. Shit happens
It is amazing how many people who are firmly atheistic believe there is, nonetheless, something sacred about human intelligence than cannot be mimicked and bettered by a bunch of electronics.
Yep
They are all molecules.
Yep
They were all brought together by the "artifice" of evolution, and mutation, and random change.
Yep
This time intelligence has evolved via another intelligence.
Major academic research project finds that the intervention that most successfully reduced partisan animosity and anti-democratic attitudes was watching this Heinken ad, I kid you not. https://twitter.com/froomkin/status/1564321493479264259
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
Utter nonsense.
What is the limit on the number of people that Earth can support? 10 billion? 20 billion? A trillion?
The planet is already substantially ecologically denuded and the situation continues to deteriorate. This is entirely the fault of human beings. Quite how things would be worse if men tied a knot in it after the first kid and kept doing so until there were only about three billion of us left I don't know. That would only take the world population back to where it was circa 1960. Civilization would continue. It'd have a much better chance of continuing than under the course apparently advocated by Mr Musk.
It would be very bad because we'd be left with a very large number of aged people having their bottoms wiped by a small number of people of working age.
Automate that shit. You can't just keep breeding bottom wipers
So.. After Scholz's speech today about ever closer union, we'd have nipped all of this in the bud if we'd still been in the EU, right?
I am coming to the view that Scholz has been given office to make Merkle’s time look less embarrassing. He’s got a bit to go.
Yes indeed! thank God our last leader's time wasn't embarrassing.
Strangely our (still current for a few days) leader appears totally unembarassed by it, as do his more gloopy supporters. The sentient ones with a shred of self respect look down at their feet and mumble about Corbyn.
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
He's really not:
The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.
The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
I agree it creates problems, but it's still probably a good thing on balance. The global population continuing to grow puts pressure on systems and would be more likely to push resources to some breaking point.
A steadily falling (as opposed to collapsing) global population can be managed via some mix of migration from poorer, younger countries to older, richer countries. Plus people working longer and changes to taxation.
The likes of South Korea with a incredibly low birth rate and very little immigration is setting itself up to become poorer over time though.
it's not
See my posts below!
AI is on the verge of being real AI. It will do many jobs. Maybe all of them. It will solve this. Of course it might then decide to wipe out humanity but it's a risk we have to take
AI would not have invaded Ukraine
I genuinely believe Homo sapiens is now in a race between its own innate but unmeant self-destructiveness, and the ability to fabricate AI which will save us. Might be close
Why would AI not have decided to invade Ukraine if it was programmed to pursue a Russian Nationalist agenda?
Would the AI be that intelligent if you did? Though any AI is only as good as its input data, and you could feed it a lopsided data set, I guess.
Perhaps, like the computer in War Games, it would conclude that the only way to win at the game of aggressive nationalism is not to play. Persue neutrality and extreme wealth instead. Compare Likely-Russia-2030 with Parallel-Universe-Russia-2030, where it calmly and competently got on with pumping and selling fossil fuels. Which one would have more actual oomph on the world stage?
"Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."
(1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.
(2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
He's really not:
The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.
The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
I agree it creates problems, but it's still probably a good thing on balance. The global population continuing to grow puts pressure on systems and would be more likely to push resources to some breaking point.
A steadily falling (as opposed to collapsing) global population can be managed via some mix of migration from poorer, younger countries to older, richer countries. Plus people working longer and changes to taxation.
The likes of South Korea with a incredibly low birth rate and very little immigration is setting itself up to become poorer over time though.
it's not
See my posts below!
AI is on the verge of being real AI. It will do many jobs. Maybe all of them. It will solve this. Of course it might then decide to wipe out humanity but it's a risk we have to take
AI would not have invaded Ukraine
I genuinely believe Homo sapiens is now in a race between its own innate but unmeant self-destructiveness, and the ability to fabricate AI which will save us. Might be close
Let me know when it can unload the dishwasher and stack all the plates in the right cupboard.
Comments
Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won
For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues
We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/29/u-s-ukraine-retake-territory-russia-00054092
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/29/its-heartbreaking-englands-school-leaders-on-budget-shortfalls
I suspect as soon as she is proclaimed/announced Prime Minister, the "selling" of Liz Truss will begin in earnest with the pro-Conservative media falling over themselves to present insubstantial stories of what she was like at school, her family, her favourite food and where she buys her clothes.
The presentational/image/marketing process will be considered more important than any policy announcements. Presumably she has an idea of the immediate Cabinet and will form that within 24 hours of returning from the Palace and from then on it will be a blizzard of announcements, pledges and promises.
The idea is the poor old electorate will believe we have a "new" Government and a "new" Prime Minister much as the lines old when Johnson took over - I suspect it will be a much harder sell this time.
It's an example of "In War, all laws are silent."
A steadily falling (as opposed to collapsing) global population can be managed via some mix of migration from poorer, younger countries to older, richer countries. Plus people working longer and changes to taxation.
The likes of South Korea with a incredibly low birth rate and very little immigration is setting itself up to become poorer over time though.
One third of the country under water
28 years old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsbT02Y-Yzg
I’m thinking of taking a punt on @rcs1000 ‘s French LNG membrane supplier share tip.
I need a broker who isn’t going to rinse me on Forex/commissions.
“Interactive Brokers” seem to be the best bet.
They’re offering a $200 referral bonus. I know it’s a long shot, but does anyone on here have an account with them?
Ta.
The notion of a "European Union" has been around almost since the guns stopped firing in 1945. We had a chance to be at the forefront of that but decided not to and thus our membership of the EEC (and later the EU) was always going to be flawed.
Now we're out there's nothing stopping the rest of the EU moving toward their objective of a united Europe but don't imagine they've only started talking about it because we've left. Our departure has probably helped those looking to create a united Europe or EuroFed or whatever but trying to make a cheap pro-Brexit point out of Scholz's speech is weak.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-62670717
Rate is 0.81.
We are only at the very beginning of transitioning to renewable energy. Prices for wind and solar have collapsed 75% in two decades for wind, and 95% for solar. And they will keep falling.
Battery technology is continuing to improve, so the world's land transport needs - inside our own lifetimes - are going to go from burning oil, to entirely renewable electric.
There's similar - extraordinarily - progress in other areas. I know companies working on tuning LEDs so that they can only emit light in the frequency that is used by crops for photosynthesis. The energy savings from this are immense.
More people than ever before live lives unimaginable to our predecessors. Clean water has gone from luxury to being available to four or five billion people, all in a short period of time.
We've close the hole in the ozone layer. In most modern economies, rivers are becoming cleaner than ever.
I know doomsaying is fashionable. But be on the side of the optimists. Humanity has made extraordinary steps in the last three decades, and will continue to do so. Yes, there'll be difficulties along the way. But - all in all - things are getting better.
BUT FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, I WAS NOT RECOMMENDING PURCHASING SHARES IN ANYTHING, MERELY RELAYING SOMETHING I HAD DONE MYSELF
Might be very inaccurate but will give us and indication of how big this counteroffensive is.
Invade Iran, Churchill did it during WWII, sometimes you have to do awkward things for the greater good.
We're doing it for Ukraine, not ourselves.
You read a Tom Knox book?
They aren't for reading. Good god. I don't believe the author even made it all the way through.
I expect her team are in very complex and detailed considerations and frankly avoiding the BBC interview seems sensible
Truss is just 2 % behind Starmer as best PM in tonight's poll which I do find surprising
Anyway only another couple of weeks for all to be revealed and real discussion can take place on actual measures not hypothetical ones
New PMs always get a boost, even Gordon Brown and Theresa May all got boosts which dissipated once the public got to know them.
I know absolutely nothing about the subject and tend to post rubbish
Is that OK
I’ve sent you a vanilla message.
The more interesting question is if he can get most seats in a hung parliament or a small majority, in which case he can ignore the SNP. Or if Truss gets a large enough bounce to ensure the Tories still win most seats even if they lose their majority but Labour and the SNP are more than the Tories and DUP. That would still make Starmer PM but with indyref2 firmly back on the agenda
Edit - I'm sure you've said the same thing before.
Slipped up more than once already.
PeoplePolling (on behalf of GB News!) gave Labour a 14-point lead!
There will be a second election within months just as in 1974. What would be intriguing is if it produced another well-hung (sic) Parliament.
Where were you born? St Petersburg.
Where did you grow up? Petrograd.
Where do you live now? Leningrad.
Where do you want to live? St Petersburg.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1564337406400159746
https://twitter.com/Aviation_Intel/status/1564339115218579456
See my posts below!
AI is on the verge of being real AI. It will do many jobs. Maybe all of them. It will solve this. Of course it might then decide to wipe out humanity but it's a risk we have to take
AI would not have invaded Ukraine
I genuinely believe Homo sapiens is now in a race between its own innate but unmeant self-destructiveness, and the ability to fabricate AI which will save us. Might be close
He's been impressively consistent in supporting the government on everything they've done for Ukraine
But..
He tried twice to put Putin appeaser Corbyn into Downing St
He's pleased his supporters by proving that he'll say anything to get elected
Why would even they believe what he says now?
John Oliver vs AI images https://youtube.com/watch?v=3YNku5FKWjw
It is amazing how many people who are firmly atheistic believe there is, nonetheless, something sacred about human intelligence than cannot be mimicked and bettered by a bunch of electronics. They are all molecules. They were all brought together by the "artifice" of evolution, and mutation, and random change. This time intelligence has evolved via another intelligence. So be it. Shit happens
I believe AI is now exhibiting signs of Turing-test style sentience, and humanity needs to gather to decide how to use it, or not use it. This is as important as climate change, and might even save the climate
It could be a unifier, which is badly needed. The robots are coming: let's work together to make them help us, not kill us
For example, whether there is an intrinsic difference between computation, and the operation of the human brain.
There is a lot of humour in the new AI, he didn't find it
Mentation evolves from molecules
You are here at just the right time to observe that Stable Diffusion is "basically the same as Photoshop"
Yep
They are all molecules.
Yep
They were all brought together by the "artifice" of evolution, and mutation, and random change.
Yep
This time intelligence has evolved via another intelligence.
Nope
So be it. Shit happens
Yep
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etIqln7vT4w
Just reevaluated…
Major academic research project finds that the intervention that most successfully reduced partisan animosity and anti-democratic attitudes was watching this Heinken ad, I kid you not.
https://twitter.com/froomkin/status/1564321493479264259
Though according to the Daily Sport another inventor died at the hands (?) of his invention - with what accuracy I have no idea.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/08/florida-voter-fraud-election-police-desantis-entrapment.html
Perhaps, like the computer in War Games, it would conclude that the only way to win at the game of aggressive nationalism is not to play. Persue neutrality and extreme wealth instead. Compare Likely-Russia-2030 with Parallel-Universe-Russia-2030, where it calmly and competently got on with pumping and selling fossil fuels. Which one would have more actual oomph on the world stage?