Protests erupt in France over Macron’s retirement age push

[laughing dog]

They aren't now. But as time goes on they would have become more valuable

And they still will.

Your assumption that they won't is both false and insulting.

Become more valuable how? You don't become more skilled by sitting on your ass, you become more skilled by doing. And they're not doing.

An increase in profit margin of what employees produce makes current employees and potential employees more valuable to that employer.

 

[bilby]

They aren't now. But as time goes on they would have become more valuable

And they still will.

Your assumption that they won't is both false and insulting.

Become more valuable how? You don't become more skilled by sitting on your ass, you become more skilled by doing. And they're not doing.

They're not earning.

Whether or not they are doing, is partly up to them, and partly dependent on the income provided to them while they're unemployed.

Your assumption that it's impossible to improve your skills without doing paid work, is both false and insulting.

 

[bilby]

You want to increase or stabilize birth rates which are dropping in much of the world?

No, not me.
I would like birth rates to drop precipitously.
this planet was much nicer when there were <2 billion humans on it.

Not for humans it wasn't.

 

[Elixir]

You want to increase or stabilize birth rates which are dropping in much of the world?

No, not me.
I would like birth rates to drop precipitously.
this planet was much nicer when there were <2 billion humans on it.

Not for humans it wasn't.

As I recall, I was human at the time.

 

[bilby]

You want to increase or stabilize birth rates which are dropping in much of the world?

No, not me.
I would like birth rates to drop precipitously.
this planet was much nicer when there were <2 billion humans on it.

Precipitous changes are universally bad for survival.

For individual survival, maybe. But I don't see any human examples to bear that out. Anyhow -
Survival of the species is another matter.
So is the quality of the individuals of the species' lives.
I do not subscribe to the idea that more people is better, since we all live in what is effectively a closed system (planet).
Further, I have almost 3/4 of a century of experience watching human populations more than triple, and have paid attention to how things have changed.

3/4 of a century ago, famine and war were commonplace. Today they are rare.

3/4 of a century ago, nobody had a cellphone, a computer, or a large colour TV; Cars were unsafe at any speed, and were inefficient and generally lacking in both comfort and efficiency; Average incomes were tiny, workplaces were hazardous, polluted, and polluting.

You haven't been paying much attention to how things have changed if you think things were generally better 3/4 of a century ago.

The only significant change for the worse in that time is that you personally got older, more cynical, less free, and less healthy; And you selectively forgot the bad things, while remembering the good ones. As did we all.

 

[Toni]

You want to increase or stabilize birth rates which are dropping in much of the world?

No, not me.
I would like birth rates to drop precipitously.
this planet was much nicer when there were <2 billion humans on it.

Not for humans it wasn't.

As I recall, I was human at the time.

Unless I am badly mistaken, you were not born in 1927 which is when scientists estimate the world’s population reached 2 billion. Me either. I do remember, vaguely, 1960, when the population was estimated at 3 billion. I also remember measles mumps and chickenpox. Not much fun but I was relatively unscathed. Lots of people were far less lucky. I’m also rather fond of indoor plumbing, something that was new to my family. And eagles. They were nearly extinct. So were grizzlybears, condors, manatees, gray wolves, humpbacked whales. Dozens of other species. Civil rights and LGBTQ rights and women’s rights are all much, much better recognized and protected. Cars and furnaces are much more fuel efficient. It’s much better to be disabled today compared with 1927 or 1960.

At what point in time do you think that life was at its best for humans?

 

[bilby]

You want to increase or stabilize birth rates which are dropping in much of the world?

No, not me.
I would like birth rates to drop precipitously.
this planet was much nicer when there were <2 billion humans on it.

Not for humans it wasn't.

As I recall, I was human at the time.

A much younger human. Young humans are generally healthier, less stressed, have fewer responsibilities, and form lasting memories of how the world should be, while discarding the memories of the hardships (or putting a nice gloss on them that wasn't noticeable at the time).

 

[Elixir]

3/4 of a century ago, famine and war were commonplace. Today they are rare.

And you put that down to population growth? I put it down to technology.

At what point in time do you think that life was at its best for humans?

“Life for humans” is not the same thing as “nicer planet”. For my tastes the planet was “nicer” when there were <3b people (sorry - my mistake to say <2b ).
This is not about my youthful vim and vigor, it’s about vast schools of menhaden that kept the ocean “clean” where it is now rotten smelling from red tide and the death it brings. It’s about North American wilderness that is no more.
i reject your unsupported assertion that “life is better” with cellphones, TV and jet travel except insofar that things that are better than those are only accessible to the elite now.
I think that if the rise in technology was not attendant with rise in population, life would be “better“.

ETA I admit I am wishing for what probably never could have been, given population growth as a primary tech driver.

 

[Toni]

3/4 of a century ago, famine and war were commonplace. Today they are rare.

And you put that down to population growth? I put it down to technology.

At what point in time do you think that life was at its best for humans?

“Life for humans” is not the same thing as “nicer planet”. For my tastes the planet was “nicer” when there were <3b people (sorry - my mistake to say <2b ).
This is not about my youthful vim and vigor, it’s about vast schools of menhaden that kept the ocean “clean” where it is now rotten smelling from red tide and the death it brings. It’s about North American wilderness that is no more.
i reject your unsupported assertion that “life is better” with cellphones, TV and jet travel except insofar that things that are better than those are only accessible to the elite now.
I think that if the rise in technology was not attendant with rise in population, life would be “better“.

I’m disregarding the comments about technology but I will remind you that Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962. I remember playing in clouds of pesticides —sprayed to kill mosquitoes in about 1964. Birth control pills became available in 1960.

Unfortunately along with the rise in human rights and concerns about the environment, greed has also increased and the desire on the part of white men to return the world to the 1960’s they prefer, when women and minorities knew their place. And nobody gave a fuck about wildlife.

 

[Elixir]

I remember playing in clouds of pesticides —sprayed to kill mosquitoes in about 1964. Birth control pills became available in 1960.

Yeah, the DDT sprayer truck (we called it the fogging machine) used to come down our alley in Naples every month or so. VERY exciting, and the smell was divinely toxic.
it occurs to me that a smaller population might not have required quite so much DDT.

greed has also increased and the desire on the part of white men to return the world to the 1960’s they prefer, when women and minorities knew their place. And nobody gave a fuck about wildlife.

I gave a fuck about wildlife, minorities, women AND greed from a very early age. I recall trying, to no avail, at age 5 to express my concern.
Now the mechanisms that foster greed and the suppression of minorities and women are more sophisticated and less overt, but almost just as widespread and powerful. Greed looks more prevalent today than it did in the 1960s due partly to the great increase in potential victims of it, and partly due to social structures designe for and by the rich. But as a basic human trait I don’t think it has changed.

 

[bilby]

it occurs to me that a smaller population might not have required quite so much DDT.

The amount of DDT required to eliminate Malaria and other mosquito borne diseases in a given area is determined by the population of mosquitoes in that area.

Human population isn't the problem, or even a problem; it's the objective.

You can eliminate all human problems and all human suffering by reducing population to zero; But that's batshit crazy for reasons that I hope are obvious.

Population control is both unnecessary and futile as a means of improving literally anything. But it remains frighteningly popular.

 

[Toni]

I remember playing in clouds of pesticides —sprayed to kill mosquitoes in about 1964. Birth control pills became available in 1960.

Yeah, the DDT sprayer truck (we called it the fogging machine) used to come down our alley in Naples every month or so. VERY exciting, and the smell was divinely toxic.
it occurs to me that a smaller population might not have required quite so much DDT.

greed has also increased and the desire on the part of white men to return the world to the 1960’s they prefer, when women and minorities knew their place. And nobody gave a fuck about wildlife.

I gave a fuck about wildlife, minorities, women AND greed from a very early age. I recall trying, to no avail, at age 5 to express my concern.
Now the mechanisms that foster greed and the suppression of minorities and women are more sophisticated and less overt, but almost just as widespread and powerful. Greed looks more prevalent today than it did in the 1960s due partly to the great increase in potential victims of it, and partly due to social structures designe for and by the rich. But as a basic human trait I don’t think it has changed.

Smaller population of what? Mosquitoes? Well, we have that now, thanks to DDT (my exposure was mainly in the Keys). And thanks to banning DDT, I see bald eagles nearly every day. I grew up in woodlands and on lakes and farms, as well. I became an environmentalist as soon as I knew what that was. I'm not nostalgic for those days. I remember the bad parts, too. If we had not changed our ways (a little ) in the 1960s that you so long for, the seas would be as dead as humpback whales and bald eagles would be. We can't just pick a point in time when we were happy and declare the best time ever. Because it was the best for us doesn't mean it was the best for anyone not in our situation or in our part of the world or for the world.

Greed we will always have with us. That is what kept minorities and women and gay people down. It's what's keeping them down now. It's our fault we havent' done more to clip the wings of greed made manifest by the existence of and rise of power of Trump. But way back in the middle ages, we had monarchies and crusades which suppressed and conquered and laid waste to lands, tortured infidels and burned women as witches but really for greed and so on. Yes, we've lost some species since those times. We live longer and women are much more likely to survive pregnancy and childbirth. Children as well. Mind you, the US is doing its damnedest to reverse that trend and kill a many women as possible.

It's lazy and wrong to declare that things were better in the past. It's wrong to not do our best to restore and retain what is good and mitigate what is bad at any and every time in the world.

 

[Toni]

it occurs to me that a smaller population might not have required quite so much DDT.

The amount of DDT required to eliminate Malaria and other mosquito borne diseases in a given area is determined by the population of mosquitoes in that area.

Human population isn't the problem, or even a problem; it's the objective.

You can eliminate all human problems and all human suffering by reducing population to zero; But that's batshit crazy for reasons that I hope are obvious.

Population control is both unnecessary and futile as a means of improving literally anything. But it remains frighteningly popular.

I think that population control is necessary and good insofar as it helps people determine their own fertility and reproductive choices without resorting to forcing others to reproduce with them.

 

[Elixir]

Population control is only evil insofar as it implies some human doing the controlling. That’s fairly guaranteed to be evil.
If it happens as a product of general human awareness, great. Most likely though, if there is any significant population decline in the next few hundred years, it will be an unintended result of human or natural causes.

 

[bilby]

it occurs to me that a smaller population might not have required quite so much DDT.

The amount of DDT required to eliminate Malaria and other mosquito borne diseases in a given area is determined by the population of mosquitoes in that area.

Human population isn't the problem, or even a problem; it's the objective.

You can eliminate all human problems and all human suffering by reducing population to zero; But that's batshit crazy for reasons that I hope are obvious.

Population control is both unnecessary and futile as a means of improving literally anything. But it remains frighteningly popular.

I think that population control is necessary and good insofar as it helps people determine their own fertility and reproductive choices without resorting to forcing others to reproduce with them.

I agree; but that's called 'birth control', rather than 'population control'.

Given a basic education, and access to safe and effective birth control, the average number of children per woman falls below replacement level, and population control looks after itself.

Everyone has the number of children they want (unless they suffer fertility issues and simply cannot have the number they want), and population slowly declines.

 

[Toni]

it occurs to me that a smaller population might not have required quite so much DDT.

The amount of DDT required to eliminate Malaria and other mosquito borne diseases in a given area is determined by the population of mosquitoes in that area.

Human population isn't the problem, or even a problem; it's the objective.

You can eliminate all human problems and all human suffering by reducing population to zero; But that's batshit crazy for reasons that I hope are obvious.

Population control is both unnecessary and futile as a means of improving literally anything. But it remains frighteningly popular.

I think that population control is necessary and good insofar as it helps people determine their own fertility and reproductive choices without resorting to forcing others to reproduce with them.

I agree; but that's called 'birth control', rather than 'population control'.

Given a basic education, and access to safe and effective birth control, the average number of children per woman falls below replacement level, and population control looks after itself.

Everyone has the number of children they want (unless they suffer fertility issues and simply cannot have the number they want), and population slowly declines.

Yes: I meant birth control.

 

[Elixir]

Given a basic education, and access to safe and effective birth control, the average number of children per woman falls below replacement level, and population control looks after itself.

Perfect. Except for the rich who stay that way on the backs of the desperate.