rigorousintuition.ca

DrEvil » 31 Jan 2020 20:55 wrote:

chump » Fri Jan 31, 2020 3:31 am wrote:

Democracy cannot survive overpopulation.
Human dignity cannot survive it.
Convenience and dignity cannot survive it.
As you put more and more people in the world,
the value of life not only declines, it disappears.
It doesn’t matter if someone dies.
The more people there are, the less one individual matters.
- Isaac Asimov

Isaac Asimov on Influenza:

Influenza? Nice disease.

There was a terrible epidemic in the time of Marcus Aurelius, at which time the Roman Empire was at it’s height. And the Roman Empire was never the same again, so many were killed and so much destruction was done to adjust the human spirit as a result. But, nobody knows exactly what the epidemic was of… Maybe it was a Smallpox epidemic, but nobody knows for sure.

Maybe try not being so dishonest and selective in your quotes. That's the kind of shit anti-vaxxers pull.

Right after he says "Nice disease", which is clearly a joke, he says "it's a dreadful disease, actually".

As for the overpopulation quote, he's not wrong. More people on a planet with limited resources will inevitably lead to conflict, and war and democracy don't play nice with each other. Just look at what the Syrian civil war did to European politics.

stickdog99 » Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:47 pm wrote:

DrEvil » 31 Jan 2020 20:55 wrote:

chump » Fri Jan 31, 2020 3:31 am wrote:

Democracy cannot survive overpopulation.
Human dignity cannot survive it.
Convenience and dignity cannot survive it.
As you put more and more people in the world,
the value of life not only declines, it disappears.
It doesn’t matter if someone dies.
The more people there are, the less one individual matters.
- Isaac Asimov

Isaac Asimov on Influenza:

Influenza? Nice disease.

There was a terrible epidemic in the time of Marcus Aurelius, at which time the Roman Empire was at it’s height. And the Roman Empire was never the same again, so many were killed and so much destruction was done to adjust the human spirit as a result. But, nobody knows exactly what the epidemic was of… Maybe it was a Smallpox epidemic, but nobody knows for sure.

Maybe try not being so dishonest and selective in your quotes. That's the kind of shit anti-vaxxers pull.

Right after he says "Nice disease", which is clearly a joke, he says "it's a dreadful disease, actually".

As for the overpopulation quote, he's not wrong. More people on a planet with limited resources will inevitably lead to conflict, and war and democracy don't play nice with each other. Just look at what the Syrian civil war did to European politics.

Have you ever heard of Demographic Transition Theory? Perhaps like you, I went my whole life thinking that exponential population growth was inevitable and would lead to the inevitable destruction of our planet if societies did not immediately go to extraordinary means to prevent it. But, it turns out that the data shows that all you have do to limit population growth is to confer onto people the "benefits" of industrialization.

There is plenty of room, and we have plenty of resources for everyone alive on the planet today. Looking at the data objectively leads anyone (who is not an elitist) to conclude that overpopulation is not our biggest problem. Hmmmmm. To whose benefit have we all been conditioned to think it is?

DrEvil » 13 Apr 2020 22:20 wrote:

stickdog99 » Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:47 pm wrote:

DrEvil » 31 Jan 2020 20:55 wrote:

chump » Fri Jan 31, 2020 3:31 am wrote:

Democracy cannot survive overpopulation.
Human dignity cannot survive it.
Convenience and dignity cannot survive it.
As you put more and more people in the world,
the value of life not only declines, it disappears.
It doesn’t matter if someone dies.
The more people there are, the less one individual matters.
- Isaac Asimov

Isaac Asimov on Influenza:

Influenza? Nice disease.

There was a terrible epidemic in the time of Marcus Aurelius, at which time the Roman Empire was at it’s height. And the Roman Empire was never the same again, so many were killed and so much destruction was done to adjust the human spirit as a result. But, nobody knows exactly what the epidemic was of… Maybe it was a Smallpox epidemic, but nobody knows for sure.

Maybe try not being so dishonest and selective in your quotes. That's the kind of shit anti-vaxxers pull.

Right after he says "Nice disease", which is clearly a joke, he says "it's a dreadful disease, actually".

As for the overpopulation quote, he's not wrong. More people on a planet with limited resources will inevitably lead to conflict, and war and democracy don't play nice with each other. Just look at what the Syrian civil war did to European politics.

Have you ever heard of Demographic Transition Theory? Perhaps like you, I went my whole life thinking that exponential population growth was inevitable and would lead to the inevitable destruction of our planet if societies did not immediately go to extraordinary means to prevent it. But, it turns out that the data shows that all you have do to limit population growth is to confer onto people the "benefits" of industrialization.

There is plenty of room, and we have plenty of resources for everyone alive on the planet today. Looking at the data objectively leads anyone (who is not an elitist) to conclude that overpopulation is not our biggest problem. Hmmmmm. To whose benefit have we all been conditioned to think it is?

I wasn't aware of the specific name, but that's what I've been preaching all along. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at standard of living vs. birth rates and figure it out.

Unfortunately there's research looking at the possibility of getting everyone up to a high, western-style standard of living. The short answer is no. Everyone can have their basic needs met, but that's about it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0021-4
(the full article is available on libgen)

JackRiddler » 14 Apr 2020 03:28 wrote:First, it is not "standard of living" at "Western" levels that causes a transition to stable population. That's far too general. It's about health conditions in general (people don't fear premature death for themselves or high mortality for their children) and the education and relative empowerment of women. Where women can read, have equal rights to make their own life choices, and make their own decisions about whether and when to have children, population stabilizes.

Second, "standard of living" at "Western" levels, meaning the consumption (and also waste) of energy and resources and the production of pollution involved in the "Western" lifestyle, highlights the real population problem. It is the population of people who live that lifestyle, especially the richer ones among them. Per capita consumption of Americans is 30 to 100 times that of countries in Africa. We can grant that a lot of that difference comes in wasteful and unnecessary activity (such as the quasi requirement that almost everyone needs a car for commuting to work or even for shopping for food, or that almost every meal must be centered on meat) or is disproportionately concentrated among the folk who eat for all.

Are we really having this conversation here?

JackRiddler » Tue Apr 14, 2020 5:28 am wrote:First, it is not "standard of living" at "Western" levels that causes a transition to stable population. That's far too general. It's about health conditions in general (people don't fear premature death for themselves or high mortality for their children) and the education and relative empowerment of women. Where women can read, have equal rights to make their own life choices, and make their own decisions about whether and when to have children, population stabilizes.

Second, "standard of living" at "Western" levels, meaning the consumption (and also waste) of energy and resources and the production of pollution involved in the "Western" lifestyle, highlights the real population problem. It is the population of people who live that lifestyle, especially the richer ones among them. Per capita consumption of Americans is 30 to 100 times that of countries in Africa. We can grant that a lot of that difference comes in wasteful and unnecessary activity (such as the quasi requirement that almost everyone needs a car for commuting to work or even for shopping for food, or that almost every meal must be centered on meat) or is disproportionately concentrated among the folk who eat for all.

Are we really having this conversation here?

But, of course, automation and technological advancement can never be directed to provide any resources for our current population levels. Right?

In any case, who among us despises the idea of having just enough so that everyone can have their basic needs met the most? That's the yacht charters' worst dystopian nightmare! Welcome, Thanos!

According to Dr. Thomas:

“Lifestyle differences between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups in this practice cannot explain the large difference in outcomes, and if they do, then it would be objective to conclude that everyone should adopt the lifestyle followed by the unvaccinated if they want healthier children. That lifestyle choice includes, for many families, avoiding some or all vaccines, and thus, the lifestyle choice concern is inextricably linked to vaccine exposure.

“Parents are almost universally told by their child’s health care provider that the health issue was not due to the vaccine, in spite of growing evidence in the scientific literature that supports both plausible mechanisms of action for chronic illnesses including epidemiological associations. It is now apparent that the commonly reported lack of association of adverse events may be due to the use of a test statistic with low intrinsic power and due to problems including model misspecification and overadjustment bias and that further research is needed to update guidelines and recommendations via additional studies.

“We could detect no widespread negative health effects in the unvaccinated other than the rare but significant vaccine-targeted diagnosis. We can conclude that the unvaccinated children in this practice are not, overall, less healthy than the vaccinated and that indeed the vaccinated children appear to be significantly less healthy than the unvaccinated.

“It is time to state this fact: vaccines are not safe. Vaccines are associated with significant acute and chronic health issues in children, including asthma, allergic rhinitis, breathing problems, behavior issues, ADHD, respiratory infection, otitis media, ear pain, other infections, eye disorders, eczema, skin disorders and anemia. This is what the data above show clearly.

“Every major health plan and large institution with data should simply identify the unvaccinated within their data set and match those patients by age and demographics to compare all health outcomes as we have done in this historic study. This is the kind of work the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, the public health institutions, and every major health plan and clinic should be doing. We need more data, not less.

“As COVID-19 vaccines are rolled out, it is imperative that those getting the vaccines be compared to those not getting them to look at all health outcomes. Failure to do so will bury the negative effects of vaccination. It is unethical to administer an experimental vaccine that has no long-term safety testing without setting up a system to compare those who get the COVID-19 vaccines to those who do not get them.”

identity » 19 Apr 2020 09:41 wrote:Not sure if this has been posted upthread; in any case, never hurts to be reminded of the uncensored truth.

The original Merck MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) combo vaccine product insert listing all
the known side effects (adverse reactions) of the vaccine:

Merck .png

Joe Hillshoist » 09 Dec 2020 01:04 wrote:

identity » 19 Apr 2020 09:41 wrote:Not sure if this has been posted upthread; in any case, never hurts to be reminded of the uncensored truth.

The original Merck MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) combo vaccine product insert listing all
the known side effects (adverse reactions) of the vaccine:

Merck .png

That didn't say they were side effects, just that those things had been reported after someone recieved the vaccine. It didn't mention any connection between them.

Personally I think if they ever study it properly they will find that autism is a genetic condition that isn't as dependent on environmental issues as some think.

DrEvil » 09 Dec 2020 00:30 wrote:Going from "found unresponsive" to "murdered" is a bit of a stretch. At least wait for a little more information.

Incidentally, would this be the same Brandy Vaughan who said the anti-vaxx movement business was just as corrupt as pharma?


Dr. Paul Thomas lost his license for being a shit doctor (pdf):
https://omb.oregon.gov/clients/ormb/Ord ... gOwQ2Vowjw

At least he still has his supplement business.