Humans will wipe themselves out!

rinks wrote:For the new thread title, I’m just going to quote something I said last year, which I stand by:

rinks wrote:Global warming causing widespread crop destruction and failure of the food supply chain, leading to rioting and societal disruption, then global power grid and communications breakdown, collapse of civilisation and mass population decline, until the human race ceases to be the dominant species, existing only in small communities and no longer endangering all other lifeforms on the planet. Hopefully just after my own expiration.

rinks wrote:

Vermilion wrote:Well ain't you just a glass and a half full of joy.

That’s me being positive! It’s the best thing that could happen. Humans got lucky with technology but strawberry floated everything up and don’t deserve to carry on, especially as they’re on the cusp of taking their destruction beyond the confines of Earth.

Britain will be ok though.

The nature of man, as with all forms of life, is to take and consume as much as possible. We have little in the ways of upper limits on the scale and amount to which we can do this, which is why we're at the point we find ourselves. If the results of our nature is destruction then we should embrace that and press the nuke button, and from the ashes of war socialism shall finally arise.

Albear wrote:Oddly I was just reading an article about this show. I haven't seen it, but will give it a watch.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56660823


Even if some claims are exaggerated /unscientific we really do have a responsibility to fish in a balanced, kind (as possible) and sustainable way

If fish needs to double in price to support this then I'm all for it.

It's a shame they didn't spend more time making talking to actual scientists and getting a more realistic view of the situation.

Lex-Man wrote:It's a shame they didn't spend more time making talking to actual scientists and getting a more realistic view of the situation.

Is it a shame? If it's putting across a message you agree with, then all it matters is if it's effective propaganda for that idea or not.

Karl_ wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:It's a shame they didn't spend more time making talking to actual scientists and getting a more realistic view of the situation.

Is it a shame? If it's putting across a message you agree with, then all it matters is if it's effective propaganda for that idea or not.

I think it provides an easy out for people, they can see the report that the documentary got a bunch of stuff wrong and then dismiss it's findings. I think it's important to bullet proof your argument against legitimate criticism.

EDIT: I also think that it's important to try and be accrete so you have an accurate picture of what's going on in the world. By using misleading others in a small way you're misleading yourself.

Lex-Man wrote:

Karl_ wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:It's a shame they didn't spend more time making talking to actual scientists and getting a more realistic view of the situation.

Is it a shame? If it's putting across a message you agree with, then all it matters is if it's effective propaganda for that idea or not.

I think it provides an easy out for people, they can see the report that the documentary got a bunch of stuff wrong and then dismiss it's findings. I think it's important to bullet proof your argument against legitimate criticism.

EDIT: I also think that it's important to try and be accrete so you have an accurate picture of what's going on in the world. By using misleading others in a small way you're misleading yourself.

Sure, you care about that, so you can go and do some research and see what you think about the issue on balance. But when a piece of political media goes out to the public, what matters is the practical result - how many people are convinced by that message.

Karl_ wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Karl_ wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:It's a shame they didn't spend more time making talking to actual scientists and getting a more realistic view of the situation.

Is it a shame? If it's putting across a message you agree with, then all it matters is if it's effective propaganda for that idea or not.

I think it provides an easy out for people, they can see the report that the documentary got a bunch of stuff wrong and then dismiss it's findings. I think it's important to bullet proof your argument against legitimate criticism.

EDIT: I also think that it's important to try and be accrete so you have an accurate picture of what's going on in the world. By using misleading others in a small way you're misleading yourself.

Sure, you care about that, so you can go and do some research and see what you think about the issue on balance. But when a piece of political media goes out to the public, what matters is the practical result - how many people are convinced by that message.

I just think that when you can poke holes through an argument you're going to lose in the long term even if you make short term gains. Films like fast food nation didn't really well initially but there's this stink around it now where people point out all the flaws in the film. So in the long term I believe that being truthful will get the best results.

That seems like a very odd stance to take Karl. Surely you should want a documentary to be accurate, not just tell the message you want it to?

Albear wrote:That seems like a very odd stance to take Karl. Surely you should want a documentary to be accurate, not just tell the message you want it to?

I'm not saying that facts don't matter. If you want to understand how to make the world a better place, you need to base your stance on facts about the world. But if you already know your stance, and your goal is to generate public support for it, then it doesn't matter if what you say is accurate, it only matters if what you say is rhetorically effective.

A presentation at a scientific conference or an essay on policy details are different to mass media. "Seaspiracy" and its predecessor "Cowspiracy" are propaganda. They're not there to educate you, they're explicitly intended to advance a specific political viewpoint. It's fair enough to ask if that viewpoint has a basis in fact - would the political goals advanced actually make the world better if achieved? - but if you agree with the message being presented, then all that matters is whether it convinces other people to support you.

Go vegan

BID0 wrote:Go vegan

No

Obviously these kind of documentaries are incredibly biased but there's no denying how stupid commercialised fishing is when you look at it objectively.

"Let's just decimate entire ecosystems for profit"

Similarly you can argue all day about the morality of eating a cow but the amount of resources used to raise one and the amount of pollution and habitat destruction caused by them is objectively a net negative to the state of the worlds environment compared to the alternatives

BID0 wrote:Go vegan

Why?

Jenuall wrote:We should all of course do the things in our own power to effect change but the reality is that these real issues are going to need the pressure of national governments and international agreements to make any difference. And even then they need enforcing - just look how few strawberry floats are given about whale/dolphin hunting in some places despite it being banned.

This is the only real solution. These problems cannot be addressed without twisting the arms of the parties who are causing the most damage.
Of course they know this which is why they put huge amounts of cash and resources into making sure such legistration never comes to pass.
I do hold awareness on what I buy and eat but just like the BP "Carbon Footprint" it is just a cop out used in the hope that the general population will somehow offset the damages caused by major corporations, an idea that sounds reasonable on paper put is absolutely unfeasible and unfair in reality.

Also on the topic of documentary ethics an eye of skeptcism can be healthy with almost any documentary. Psyop is a term I have seen used a lot recently in regards to modern documentaries, to paraphrase a tweet I saw recently "Adam Curtis documentaries are psyops to make you believe the people running governments are more aware and intelligent than they appear." He does have a habit of reaching for the "they're doing all this intentionally" card.
Even something as lighthearted as video game documentaries have a degree of propaganda to them when talking about the global video game industry as this thing that only existed in japan and america and only really mattered in the United States.

Karl_ wrote:

Albear wrote:That seems like a very odd stance to take Karl. Surely you should want a documentary to be accurate, not just tell the message you want it to?

I'm not saying that facts don't matter. If you want to understand how to make the world a better place, you need to base your stance on facts about the world. But if you already know your stance, and your goal is to generate public support for it, then it doesn't matter if what you say is accurate, it only matters if what you say is rhetorically effective.

A presentation at a scientific conference or an essay on policy details are different to mass media. "Seaspiracy" and its predecessor "Cowspiracy" are propaganda. They're not there to educate you, they're explicitly intended to advance a specific political viewpoint. It's fair enough to ask if that viewpoint has a basis in fact - would the political goals advanced actually make the world better if achieved? - but if you agree with the message being presented, then all that matters is whether it convinces other people to support you.

Surely you stance should be based on the facts?

You believe that the message is more important than the evidence, which I think is extremely dangerous and much to blame for this worlds problems today.

As a scientist I would have thought your beliefs would be very much based on evidence/data. IMO We should absolutly hold/expect documentary makers to be honest and accurate. Otherwise we should just watch PR videos for whatever Political stance we believe in and become even further devided.

Albear wrote:Surely you stance should be based on the facts?

To be fair, I did say exactly that in the two sentences immediately before the one you bolded.

Albear wrote:

Karl_ wrote:I'm not saying that facts don't matter. If you want to understand how to make the world a better place, you need to base your stance on facts about the world. But if you already know your stance, and your goal is to generate public support for it, then it doesn't matter if what you say is accurate, it only matters if what you say is rhetorically effective. [...]

Not trying to put words in your mouth but you seem to have interpreted my post as, "facts and evidence don't matter, just go with whatever makes you feel good!". I'm not saying that. I'm saying that we live in a world filled with propaganda, and the only way you can meaningfully respond to living in this world is to recognise propaganda when you're watching it, and evaluate it as propaganda.

Yes, there is a factual reality - events that really happened, material conditions that people actually live under - and of course I encourage you as an individual to try to establish those facts and use them to inform your opinions. That way the evidence is on your side, your proposals are sound, and you'll presumably find it easy to convince fellow travellers also seeking that analysis.

But if you want to generate mass support for your good ideas, you now have to market them in an effective way to the 99% of people who won't sit down and do the research. How do you reach them?

We need a proper virus in all honesty. A horrible thing to say and not necessarily the ethical opinion I hold myself. Especially after whats just happened. But the planet needs one that wipes out 80 % of the worlds population for the environment to recover, not 0.5 %. We're too powerful. Too goddamn selfish and powerful.

Curls wrote:We need a proper virus in all honesty. A horrible thing to say and not necessarily the ethical opinion I hold myself. Especially after whats just happened. But the planet needs one that wipes out 80 % of the worlds population for the environment to recover, not 0.5 %. We're too powerful. Too goddamn selfish and powerful.

This is just eco-fascism. The average person doesn't have any power to prevent climate change or ecological collapse, so why do you hope they die? Environmental problems are largely being caused by corporations and governments prioritising short-term profit and self-interest over sustainability and conservation.

Did I say that any of this was what I hoped? Do you think I was rubbing my hands together gleefully watching the COVID deaths rise. Far from it.

BID0 wrote:Go vegan

Make me.