D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Yeah, like I said.
Listen to the historian.
Listen to the historian.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, because that went well for you.Yeah, like I said.
Listen to the historian.
There is no reason we cant ... we are already producing enough food to sustain that easily.I still don't see the reason why we can't sustain a population of 10.9 billion. It seems we are already close to producing enough food to feed that amount.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/world-hunger_b_1463429
I'm glad that you've finally realised this.I now see that sterilizing newborns is an unreasonable idea.
Milk production at a dairy farm was low, so the farmer wrote to the local university, asking for help from academia. A multidisciplinary team of professors was assembled, headed by a theoretical physicist, and two weeks of intensive on-site investigation took place. The scholars then returned to the university, notebooks crammed with data, where the task of writing the report was left to the team leader. Shortly thereafter the physicist returned to the farm, saying to the farmer, "I have the solution, but it works only in the case of spherical cows in a vacuum".
These are the problems? I have one; try it on me and I'll fucking kill you. Is that a problem?You are right: I like Newborn Random Sterilization (NRS) because I thought it up on my own. I realize that it is not brilliant. The two things that I currently think make it unreasonable are:
1. There are not enough surgeons in third world countries to perform the sterilizations.
2. The sterilized would require lifelong support to cope with the reality that they were born fertile and that the government had taken that fertility away.
You seem to be back-sliding, AMorrow.To respond to your previous post Sparhafoc: actually implementing population control in the USA would probably require the a rate and very difficult task be accomplished: an amendment to the US Constitution. Heck, we could not even get the rather reasonable Equal Rights Amendment ratified back in the 1970s and we have not tried again on that one. The two major parties are highly polarized so I do not anticipate change in my limited lifetime.
Change had to start somewhere. Talk. Books. Information on the web. I really value the feedback that you guys have given me. If I have not directly responded to all your feedback, then please interpret that as me conceding the point. I am still thinking about my ideas and researching.
You are right: I like Newborn Random Sterilization (NRS) because I thought it up on my own. I realize that it is not brilliant. The two things that I currently think make it unreasonable are:
1. There are not enough surgeons in third world countries to perform the sterilizations.
2. The sterilized would require lifelong support to cope with the reality that they were born fertile and that the government had taken that fertility away.
My current vision of NRS is that you would not even hold a regular lottery among multiple births. You would still use a lottery machine but you would just generate a random number. You would then have some criteria of the number to decide if the newborn is selected (and this sterilized) or not. E.g. if the number is an even number then the newborn is selected and sterilized.
It is really the juxtaposition of the newborn with the random number that I find to be so instructive. I feel empowered by that juxtaposition. It tells me: "Yes, this is a world-class problem where not much progress was made in amorrow2's lifetime, but there are ways (perhaps cruel ones) to get to and maintain a sustainable world population without war. I even make analogies between the lottery of the USA military draft of the Vietnam War and the random number of NRS. In both cases, important decisions are made in the relatively peaceful environment of the lottery machine chamber rather than on the chaos and violence of the battlefield.
Maybe NRS will never happen. Not even in 500 years. It occurs to me that in 500 or 1000 years time, we might even just modify the human genome through a gene drive, to limit people to only being able to have zero, one or two children on average.
You are correct. If you wanted a 50% selection rate, you could just flip a coin the way they do at the beginning of every American football game.I'm not gonna lie, one of the things that bugged me about this plan was the implementation of a random number generator when you have only two values to reference (Sterilize: Yes/No) and could literally just flip a coin.
I was talking a few months ago to an older woman I had just met and I wanted to give her only a hint of my idea. I decided to simply mention this future possibility: armed police at every birth.These are the problems? I have one; try it on me and I'll fucking kill you. Is that a problem?
Honestly, I'm beginning to think we should send the men in white coats to remove everything sharp from your vicinity and to make sure you never have any first-person contact with people, because you're fucking dangerous.
Seriously. I've encountered some howling lunatics in my travels on the net, including genuine murderers, paederasts, paedophiles, etc., but never anybody who I thought could genuinely constitute a danger to society as a whole. You need to seek professional help. Seriously. Not joking.
Wait a moment. You should Google TRNG. True Random Number Generator. It is a piece of commodity hardware. It has a tiny piece of radioactive material in it and it seeds the algorithm based on when or how many radioactive decays it counts with it's tiny ginger counter. TRNG.Greetings,
You seem to be back-sliding, AMorrow.
You'd acknowledged, in a earlier post, that you realised it was a bad idea - regardless of what you call it ("A onion by any other name...), yet you appear to be still trying to make it work.
All that's needed is universal access to birth control to allow women all over the world to choose whether they want to get pregnant every single time they have sex or not.
Another issue is your reliance on what you call a RNG.
The problem is .... there's no such thing.
Truly random events only occur in Nature - such as radioactive decay.
What RNGs rely on is a algorithm to generate a sequence of unpredictable numbers - however, eventually the sequence starts to repeat. In your proposed program, this means that the RNG would start pointing to the same sequence of people that have already been sterilised.
The only other alternative is what's called a "quasi-RNG", which combines both the naturally stochastic (unpredictable event due to a unknown random factor), and the RNG in an attempt to get some sort of sequence of random numbers.
This still faces the same issue of the sequence eventually repeating, pointing back to the same babies who've already been sterilised.
IT won't work.
Kindest regards,
James