Well our country is still reeling from the correction in 2008. Following 10 years of fierce austerity, most of our local and district councils and public services are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. — Punshhh

Are you writing from an alternative universe? Your government budgets have expanded over the last 10 years, that is certainly not "fierce austerity". And "local and district councils and public services" can never go "bankrupt", since they are funded by tax money. Maybe what you want to say is you wish taxes here higher.

If we get, or need any other correction now, we will begin to feel widespread economic collapse. — Punshhh

Stock markets are too high, and need a correction. However, a stock market fall is not the same as an "economic collapse".

We really don't need a rightwing populist government right now. Who are going to bash the poor some more. Not to mention one which is going to drive us of a cliff with Brexit. — Punshhh

I don´t know what you mean by "bash the poor", and I certainly do not see how "Brexit is driving us of a cliff". It is not the end of the world, when a country leaves the undemocratic EU project. In fact, the best countries in Europe are not members of the EU.

Where do you get these talking points from?

Economic shrinkage = economic decline, in our current capitalist system. — Punshhh

I think you are confusing short term and long term trends. A correction in overheated economy is a good thing, that is what the Corona thing brings, that is a good thing.

The wealth we had been enjoying before the sub prime mortgage crash was built on a vast bubble. — Punshhh

The bubble is still there, and will eventually need to be deflated..[/quote]

The world economy has been staggering along since and the chaos of populism sweeping the world at the moment — Punshhh

The much maligned (by the so-called mainstream media) populism is a reaction the elitist globalism that has been sweeping the world and is a healthy reaction. Do you seriously want to live in the globalist world envisioned by the likes of George Soros?

oh and not to mention the pandemic, economic decline is pretty much inevitable at the moment. — Punshhh

A much-needed correction, not a decline, if you talk about economics. You can not have continuous expansion without corrections.

who he lied about his efforts to obtain damaging emails related to Hillary Clinton’s — 3017amen

Can you tell is why you know that the e-mails were damaging if you did not see them, and why we should not see them if they are damaging?

that were stolen by Russian agents. — 3017amen

Can you tell us who these "Russian agents" are and how one "steals e-mails"?

Just curious why religious discussion should be misplaced on a philosophy forum, seeing that religion fundamentally is just philosophy for idiots? (Just to clarify, since most of the population consists of idiots, I do not consider that a bad thing.)

That is a rather naive view, has it occurred to you that capitalism requires endless growth and expansion? You are advocating economic decline, or at least shrinkage. — Punshhh

I don´t think I "advocated economic decline", where did I say that? However, you are correct that capitalism inherently requires endless growth and expansion, which of course is a problem in a limited system. There are lots of ideas about how to address this, it would be different topic.

An interesting scenario would be a world wide pandemic with a mortality of between 1and 2%. Presumably before this point, some countries would shut their borders. We would have massive economic disruption. The stock markets are having a hissy fit already. — Punshhh

All of which are good things. The overheated stock market needs some cooling off, borders need to be controlled again, and the supply chains need to be made less dependent on China. Good, good, good. How ironic that it takes a China-made virus to push us in that direction.

The US is a world leader, the wealthiest and most powerful country on Earth. To believe its climate policies and involvement in global agreements on climate change has little impact is mind-numbingly ignorant. — Xtrix

Oh, it would certainly have an impact on policy.... i.e. China taking advantage of the US hobbling its economy, and African dictators gathering at the trough of "climate" subsidies for vague promises. It would NOT have an impact on the worlds climate.

But regardless -- what is your point, exactly? We should do nothing, since we're doomed anyway? Common attitude among deniers, but no less ridiculous. — Xtrix

I do not buy the premise that we are all "doomed" because of some US political decisions. I am fully in favour of reducing the dependence on fossil fuels and on subsidizing research in alternative energy sources.

I never said Trump is responsible for climate change. Not once. — Xtrix

If you never said that, why are you arguing? The only reason I jumped in here was because of the hysterical claim that "civilization" would not survive another 4 years of Trump.

You can get lots of gold and lots of sex just by being a bit more "unfriendly" than usual. So, why on earth would you politely ask for anything if it obviously works much better by slamming that person with your bare fists? Give me what I want, or else !!! — alcontali

None of this has to do with the simple observation that a surplus of young, testosterone-filled males is not good for a stable society. (It is good for a warrior society, bend on external expansion, which is one reason for the historical rapid expansion of islam.)

For starters, the US doing 100% of what it originally promised, it would make about 15% difference. — Benkei

Difference in what, exactly? Firstly, It is not all clear what you mean, and secondly, 15% difference is a far cry from the "end of civilization" that was claimed here, evil orageman Trump would produce.

Second, locally it makes sense as well as it will lower pollution significantly if you move to alternative fuel sources and improve air quality (particularly due to reduced particulates). Investing in energy saving measures is even better as it will result in long term benefits freeing up resources (both money and fossil fuels) for other uses. — Benkei

Nothing wrong with reducing pollution, however "moving to alternative fuel sources" is easier said than done, seeing that currently the only viable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear, and currently gen 4 nuclear technology is not fully developed yet.

And regardless of all this... where is the "end civilization" that was prophecied and that I doubted?

Not as a father but as a father-figure, someone to look up to and treat like a father. I’m not saying this is true of everyone. I personally see the president as a man doing a job. — NOS4A2

I agree with yours (the second) definition. I disagree with the first one. I don´t think a nation needs a father figure as president, unless you regard the people as children.

People become aggressive usually as a response to social conditions. — Bitter Crank

Yes. And a most important and defining social condition is being incel. And if you think male psychology is the same as female psychology, I can not help you.

To argue "Well, climate change would exist without Trump" is, at best, childish to the point of embarrassment. — Xtrix

No, it is not. US policy does not determine the world climate.
If I assume that all the wild-eyed claims about global warming being solely caused by human burning of fossil fuels were true, it would not matter who is US president and what policy he makes. You could have Trump entact 100% of the most radical green agenda, and it would not make any difference.

The world is a lot bigger than the US, and the approx. 1100 bb of proven oil reserves (maybe double that including fracking) will be consumed regardless. Or do you think India, China, and Africa (heading towards a population of 4 billion within the next 50 years) give a wet fart about what the policy the US has?

To assume that a US president can determine the world`s climate is simply megalomania.

I think it's worth noting that the term "incel" means a bit more than just being involuntarily celibate. The term "incel" tends to refer to the people who form an online community to talk about their celibacy, and quite often are toxic and complain about women and life and whatnot, — Michael

No, the term "incel" means just what it is composed of: involuntary celibate. Not limited to any particular internet "community". If you don´t like the abbreviation, you can assume I mean the complete term when I use the short version.
And if you complain that incels get bitter and angry, then you are simply confirming my point: A lot of male incels is not good thing for a stable and peaceful society.

If you were correct, then conditions of prisoner relations in female prisons would not be so similar to those in male prisons. — god must be atheist

They are not. Unless you are talking about prisons filled with "trans women".

A work of fiction, not a documentary. — Michael

A work of fiction that is very insightful. Want a a documentary? Visit a male prison.

So being aggressive has nothing to do with celibacy, it just has something to do with being male? — Michael

It absoluty is connected to celibacy, unless the celibacy is by choice. We are not talking about monestaries here. Incel means INVOLUNTARY celibate.

Too often the president is regarded as a father-figure. — NOS4A2

I would not regard Barrack Hussein or Trump as my father. And certainly not the murderous warmongering hag Hillary CLinton. What do you mean?

OK, but how does that entail that men are made aggressive by celibacy? — Michael

Aggression is an innate part of the young males of our species, of course. Ever read Lord of the Flies?
Come one, I am not saying something revolutionary here.

ou should get some beer, man. You're spinning out on withdrawal. Either that, or you're getting slushed. I sense a lot of anger and lashing out in your replies, with no reason attached to your angry outbursts. — god must be atheist

I am having some beer right now, and you should stop mind reading. As Scott Adams points out, that is loserthink.

If you can't see the difference between republicants and democrats, then I can see your point. — god must be atheist

Frankly, no I can not. Do you want to give privileges to one party that the other does not have? In that case, why bother at all with several parties? Demand the Chinese or North Korean 1 party model, where the one flawless party rules alone.

I reckon that only a minority of people who are involuntarily celibate are aggressive. And of those that are, I doubt having sex is going to calm them down. — Michael

You can recon all you want, but human biology is what it is. Testosterone makes for an entirely different psychological base then estrogen.
And underneath all the PC posturing I am pretty sure you instinctively know that, as does everyone.

On a societal level, the huge merit of monogamy is that it civilizes males.

The biological FACT here is what exactly? — Possibility

Sex drive. That is entirely biological.
And do not mix that with ethics. Ethics comes into play when society is involved.

I dispute that societal norms must be BASED on this interpretation of ‘biology’. That’s my point. — Possibility

Maybe "based" is a misleading term. What I meant to say is that the biological facts are always there. Whatever societal norms are put on top of it can be very different, but the biological base is always there.

But surely you’re more than just a bunch of animals ‘forced’ to comply with the socio-political framework of the day? — Possibility

]
Are we? Biology is what it is. The socio-political framework is very different, depending on the time and place.

Frankly, if we consider ourselves to be human beings, then our ‘default’ should NOT be biology. — Possibility

Well yes, but whatever societal norms you have are BASED on biology.

Now *there's* a non-sequiter. — Wayfarer

How?

Trump's Presidency has been relentless in undoing climate and environmental protections and fostering the interests of fossil fuel corporations. He has dismissed climate science as a hoax, taken the US out of the Paris Agreement, and overturned protections against drilling in environmentally-sensitive national parks, amongst many other things. — Wayfarer

Even if I accepted all your claims about climate change and what evil Trump is doing, that is still a non-sequitur. You could erase the US from the map, eliminating ANY influence that Trump or any other president could have, and fossil fuel consumption, environmental pollution, overpopulation, and climate change would still occur.
So where is the dotted line between your much-hated Trump and the end of civilization?

Take a look at his position on climate change and the policies enacted under his administration. How his administration isn't a unique existential threat for this alone, I really don't understand. — Xtrix

I am looking, and I do not understand how his "position on climate change" the "policies enacted under his administration" are an "existential threat". Can you explain?

Who do you think appoints Supreme Court justices? — Relativist

That is always a 2-party brouhaha, no? I remember some epic fights about that.

My guess would be that a Republicant president would appint Republicant-leaning judges, and a Democratic president would appoint a Democratic-leading judge. — god must be atheist

That is to be expected from the system, so I fail to see what the problem is. What applies to one party should apply to the other, unless you you want a one-party system. China, anyone?

America is the same. Everyone hates murder, drugs, bombing of innocent people abroad, the skyracketing price of medicare, and they all want prosperity, equal chances for everyone, etc etc but for some reason the evangelist religion hijacked the Spirit of America and got it by the balls, and it never stops squeezing it. — god must be atheist

What? Looking from the outside, I don`t see much religion in the US political brouhaha, and secondly, what is this "evangelist religion" anyway?

Evangelicals aren't smarter than everyobe else, they're just focused on abortion. Abortion became legal (nationally) by court action, and it's clear that court action can undo it. This provided a political lever. Pro-choice people (a strong majority of the populstion) aren't nearly as focused. Sure, they'd prefer women have choice, but it isn't a sine qua non for choosing whom to vote for, as it is with many pro-life people. — Relativist

Not a legal expert, but afaik, the abortion thing was decided by the supreme court and not on the level of the judges that the president can appoint, so I don´t see why this is even relevant.

I am an agnostic who has clearly stated my agnostic position — Frank Apisa

In my experience, most people do not know the proper definition of "agnostic" and used it mean "atheist", while understanding "atheist" as "anti-theist". Lots of confusion.

That power was recognized by evangelical Christians — Relativist

If it is in the constitution, shouldn`t it be "recognized" by everyone?

- that's why they voted for Trump, and will do so again. — Relativist

Since every president has this power, what does it matter?

The President appoints federal judges. That is a tremendous power, with the potential to have impact that lasts decades. — Relativist

You talk about the US system? In that case I would agree. That is probabyl one of the biggest powers assigned to the president.

He's a threat, because he constantly attacks the legal system and uses the justice department in the pursuit of his own political ends (which are his personal ends, he sees no distinction.) IN addition he treats the Constitution, Congress, the State Department, and many of the other organs of government with obvious contempt. So he's a threat to constitutional democracy and the rule of law. — Wayfarer

I do not really really see that, but OK, lets just assume it.

If he's voted in for another term, this might end up having hugely damaging consequences for the Western democratic order, at a time when numerous other crises, economic, political and environmental, are reaching a peak. — Wayfarer

OK, so you imagine "hugely damaging consequences for the Western democratic order".

But That is not the same as having "f*** civilization to the point of no return" as you said earlier. The "Western democratic order" as it is surely can survive some politician that you dislike. So it is not the end of civilization in 2024 after all, then?

If you can't see it, there's no point trying to explain it. — Wayfarer

Not much of an answer, is it!
If civilization is going to be %&%%%% to the point of no return, I would certainly like to hear more about it.

another four years of Trump could just f*** civilization to the point of no return. — Wayfarer

I am continued to be be baffled by the Trump Derangement Syndrome. Can you explain how in your mind another years of Trump could just f*** civilization to the point of no return? I mean, rationally, without wild rants. (The claim sounds incredibly radicial, I wonder if any US president has such powers.) Thanks!

Should the BBC continue to receive public money?

No.

IvoryBlackBishop:

That would only happen in a theoretical situation in which the entire population decided to stop having children, and in practice, as opposed to pure abstraction, that has never happened.

No. You do not need "the entire population to stop having children" for a demographic trend leading to extinction. It is simple math. An average birth rate of 1.3 leads to an increasingly aged population and ultimately to extinction. It is not like I am making up a new topic here. This is very much debated topic for example in Western Europe (where the EU wants to change it with "replacement migration" and Japan.

So you're talking about territorialism, not "culture".
I still have no idea what that has to do with "birth rates", a nation could become "annexed" by another nation, such as through war or colonization, even then I fail to see what "population" or birth rates have to do with this.

I said nothing about terrorism, PLEASE stop making false claims. I mentioned Kosovo, because it is an example of a very rapid population shift because of birth rates. Kosovo had a purely Serbian population, in fact it was the Serbian heartland. Then, immigration plus the massive difference in birth rates between Serbian and Albanian families changed that to an Albanian population with a shrinking Serbian minority.

True, but how much "population" is needed and in the context of what goals, and how does "aggregate" population take into account other social or economic factors, such as populations of families relative to their means, and so on and so forth?

Those are all static details that depend on the society. I simply pointed to simply facts: 1) A below-replacement birth rate leads a shrinking population, and shrinking populations eventually reach zero. 2) a surplus of males in a human society is not good for the stability of said society.
I said none of the other things that you made up.

Unless something akin to the "voluntary human extinction movement" or a nihilistic worldview in which "no one" should have children was relevant, then the "entire" population would not disappear. — IvoryBlackBishop

Actually, it will. Simple demographic fact.

So, honestly, I don't see what the point in aggregate population comparisons between America, Europe, or Africa are, unless this is just some type of "population measuring contest"; can you provide any more depth to this issue?

No, simply pointing to reality. In the short term (which you seem preoccupied with) demographics means nothing. In tne long term, it means everything. Populations which do not reproduce disappear, populations which do, take over. How do you think Kosovo went from being a Serbian province to an Albanian territory? (Just a random example)

What are the living conditions in Africa (I'm assuming sub-Saharan parts of Africa where polygamy and child marriage are practices); why would you want to emulate that? This isn't just about "race" is it? — IvoryBlackBishop

Why are you continuiing to obfuscate, change the topic, and put words in my mouth? I never said anything about emulating anything or race. I am simply pointing out that sex is biological, that making children is necessary for a population to continue, and that demographics matter.

Is it not possible to communicate without all this mind-reading, projection, misquoting, and strawmen??