Overpopulation.
It used a problem that was talked about a lot in the latest century. Then some countries reduced their nativity by their own and it was marked as “it’s going to solve itself”.
Problem is, population keeps growing worldwide. Even in these countries with reduced nativity, population keeps growing via immigration.
Also the main drive on reduced nativity was increase of the quality of life and feminism. I think both things are in danger. Quality of life has been descending in later years, and feminism is being eaten by an increase in religious madness all across the world.
So I think overpopulation is still going strong and it will keep going stronger. And it will be a self induced problem, because overpopulation will reduce quality of life, and a reduced quality of life will make people breed more.
I actually think is the number one problem, way more dangerous that climate change. Because, among other things, there’s nothing more polluting than a human being, the more humans in this Earth the more impossible will be fight back climate change. Humans pollute.
And the worst is that no one cares about this issue, and people tend to become very violent when you mention it as a problem.
I worry that with declining birth rates capitalism will fall. OK maybe that is a good thing.
I recently watched this Thoughty2 video on YouTube that touched on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRN2p7sSL_Y
He essentially concludes that, at this point, technology has been able to mitigate the overpopulation fears that have existed up until now.
I full agree with you. Just because we can exist on the planet does not mean we’re better off. We’re already living with the consequences of over population.
The first thing we need to do is change our eating habits. The over-farming of land is increasing the need for chemicals to grow food - not to mention climate change. Bird flu is coming. The manner in which we have to raise animals is atrocious and leading to pandemics. Everything is full of antibiotics so farmers and ranchers don’t have to throw away “bad stock”. Which of course is due to the increasing need to produce more food.
I think the worst part is that when this is brought up people blame the corporations and the governments. They’re right that legislators should do more about this but, in America at least, the people are the one’s who are supposed to have the power. We’re supposed to make choices and cast votes for the world we want to live in. Instead, we keep making the same choices that give corporations more and more power.
America is torn between wanting all the freedom to make their own choices while complaining that government isn’t doing enough.
I totally agree, it’s alarming to see the projections of population growth. It seems unsustainable and I fear the consequences will be catastrophic. I think about this every time I see a news piece about declining birth rates or countries incentivising procreation.
That the 105 male/100 female birth to young adult ratio needs a fix to get to 100/100 at least.
The distraction comes from me being not too kind to either of the duo-culture of the US empire on this issue.
By itself this is not that big of an issue. A much bigger issue is the gender imbalance that you find in certain localities due to local governments, universities and companies not taking this gender imbalance into account. But I’m glad that you brought up this issue.
I thought female birth ratio was higher than males
When you pop a balloon, the helium floats to space and is lost into the solar wind forever. Unlike every other element we could run out, and nobody cares. (Helium is important for a lot of serious things, too)
There’s more pressing issues, of course, but if you want one that’s very unknown compared to it’s long-term significance, there you go.
I would like to pitch the idea that the obesity epidemic is a symptom of failed city infrastructure. Imagine if riding a bike was a no-friction activity; you walk out your door, you have a bike there and the bike lanes are treated as first-class infra instead of cars. Imagine how much more you would bike in this situation, and how much healthier you and everyone around you would be
One of the reasons I don’t think I’ll ever want to live outside of NYC. I walk every day. Sometimes take a bike. It’s much nicer than the car world of the suburbs I grew up in
Not just obesity, but also the loneliness epidemic, since mental health is boosted as much by the weak relationships of the people that one sees regularly, day-to-day, whose name one might not even know, as it is by close, intimate relationships. (And even the latter are suffering the loss of social contact.)
You’re trying to find a problem for your solution.
The obesity epidemic actually due to the increased availability of ultra processed foods.
As well as a massive car-centric society. I can’t even walk to Jack in the Box at 10pm to get a shit burger, but I can drive thru with a car. That’s part of the problem.
If you make something easier to do, it’s more likely to be done. This is why gun control is needed, make it harder to get a gun, less gun death; snacks at the checkout means more buying of snacks; driveways and parking lots and drive thrus mean more car use.
This is only tangentially related, but I just wanted to share a random anecdote.
I ordered a mobile pickup order at my local Taco Bell with their app. Since it’s nearby, I walked there and I had selected in store pickup. I walked inside and waited for a few moments. The manager comes out and this interaction happens.
Manager: “Inside was supposed to be closed. Idk who unlocked the door but you have to go through the drive through”
Me: “Oh uhh I already paid for an in store pickup through the app.”
Manager: “You have to go through the drive through.”
Me: “Uhhh…can I walk through the drive through? I walked here.”
The manager looks at me in total disbelief that someone would do that. “You don’t have a car???”
Me: “I mean I just walked here.”
Manager: “Ok hold on I’ll get your order.”
Lol. She looked at me like she had never heard of anyone walking some place to get some food lol. Granted I live literally a 5 minute walk from there which is probably not really the norm.
European countries have access to those same ultra processed foods and yet their consumption and the obesity rates are dramatically lower. I think there are factors beyond simple availability that we should look at fixing.
Once upon a time people worked 9-5 with a commute somewhere under twenty minutes - so somewhere in the realm of nine hours of employment before home tasks like cooking and cleaning started happening. I believe most millennials and under work at least ten and a half hour (and the number of people trying to juggle multiple jobs has gone way up).
The ultra processed and fast foods are generally the default option when you are so fully drained by a sedentary employment and craving chemical joy to deaden the depression of existence. Millennials have eschewed alcohol and tobacco like no other generation and sugar is the only chemical fulfillment they can find so it becomes a spiral of comfort food into physical pain into inability to seek other enjoyment into comfort food.
I’d hesitate to ascribe the obesity epidemic to a single cause due to the exceptions that prove the rule.
Is it? There’s primitive cultures that eat every kind of weird diet you can imagine, and they’re all thin and fit. It’s still kind of a mystery why exactly we can’t handle eating even a fraction like the historical Inuit, and just the processing itself shouldn’t change much.
One of us is confused.
I’m saying that ultra processed foods - food that have had their nutrients stripped and replaced with sugars and fats and chemicals - are more readily available. We have an ancient instinct to store fats and sugars due to food shortages. Ultra processed foods are pleasurable to eat and our biology specifically deals with them by storing them as fat.
I have never heard anyone say it’s a mystery that we can’t eat like our ancestors. On the contrary, there are a hundred fad diets specifically designed to do just this. If you look into “blue zones”, you’ll find people living long healthy lifestyles free of ultra processed foods and eating and exercising more similarly to our ancient ancestors.
Because ultra processed foods don’t fill us up but taste incredibly good. Technically the problem is overeating, but it’s a lot easier to overeat ultra processed foods.
I mean, which foods even count as ultraprocessed isn’t well defined. It’s not an ingredient, it’s not a technique. OP was trying to find a problem for their solution, you’re right, but lack of exercise is just as big of a suspect if not bigger.
They’re engineered to be very appealing for sure, but do you have a link for the not filling us up bit? That one’s new to me.
As far as I know there isn’t good science yet or strict definition, so nothing really to source except personal experience
Active living may not be the only way to address the obesity epidemic (it’s endemic now, isn’t it?) but it would help. People will be happier and healthier if they can get exercise as part of their day to day activities.
I fully agree with this. Someone else rightly pointed out that access to UPF doesn’t equate consumption. Why are people consuming UPFs? I would argue because of economic hardship (being overworked), lack of prioritizing healthy activities and social encounters, ignorance, misinformation, and habit and/or addiction.
I think eating good foods should be every humans number one priority. “You are what you eat” may be cliche but it’s true. Above all else, I think, people should be making time in their day to eat properly. Not enough people know how to cook using fresh ingredients. I constantly see claims that processed foods are so much cheaper than fresh foods. In my experience, it’s the opposite. I mean, I just made a whole stock pot full of vegetable soup for less than fifteen bucks and it’ll feed me for a week.
To your point, I think it’s true that adding exercise to your daily routine contributes to a more positive mindset. I don’t know if this is universal but when I’m depressed I eat more poorly. When I’m in a good mood, I eat more healthy. This would seem to be backed by biology and our innate need to consume sugars and fats for long term storage.
As a lifelong bike commuter who’s fifty pounds overweight and prediabetic, this isn’t the cure-all you seem to think.
It’d be great, but it won’t be enough.
Or walking. I’ve been to a few US cities, and the common denominator for all of them is that walking anywhere isn’t really an option. Sure, you can’t always walk A to B in most cities, but at least European cities have public transit to cut down on the distance, necessitating only two short walks to and from a transit station.
Observation: Saudi Arabia is heading down a Houstonian path. There was one pedestrian bridge near me, and outside of that one, getting anywhere involved strategic jaywalking to cross freeways. At least they seem to have a decent bus network, though.
I’ve lived on the east coast, west coast and in Europe. Out here in the west coast (Vancouver) the cities are nice enough but anytime I leave my home I have to walk down a hill (and my partner struggles with that due to arthritis), walk along half a mile of four lane arterial roadway, squeeze through two blocks along the same roadway on an extremely narrow unprotected at grade sidewalk while semis barrel by leaning over my head… then I get to a shopping center and transit nexus and can go elsewhere.
While living in Southern Spain I’d walk two blocks on quiet pedestrian streets to a waterfront promenade which was littered with restaurants and provided a wide (like 20 meter) surface to stroll along to reach the city center - at one point before the city center you’d need to cross a two lane high traffic road but that road had protected crosswalks every 150 meters.
The contrast between these two places (and don’t even get me started on how pleasant Barcelona is to pedestrians) is stark.
I really prefer walking to cycling. I’m totally fine with bike infrastructure, but I’d really just like neighbourhoods to have amenities they can walk to.
That might certainly be one factor, but my intuition is that the primary driver is still todays diet. Things like soda drinks that let you consume teaspoons of pure sugar in an instant without appropriate feedback simply didn’t exist in the past.
Class struggle and the institutionalized corruption that the owner class is deploying against working people.
Bootlickers’ pathological behaviours that support the owner class narratives as they larp what they hear on teevee
Trans people will be murdered over bathroom laws. You want a masculine bearded guy in the women’s room? That’s exactly what anti-trans bathroom laws require. Those guys are gonna get shot.
Which is stupid, since unisex bathrooms already exist. It shouldn’t be hard to install those in every single new building everywhere.
Remember in the 2000’s before gay marriage was legal a lot of people would suggest elimination of the word marriage and just call everything civil unions to appease religious objections?
That’s what eliminating gendered bathrooms sounds like. Gay and straight people enjoy being married. Trans and cis people enjoy their gendered privacy that makes them feel safer. I believe you’re intentions are good but removing a universal cultural norm isn’t the solution. It’s side stepping the issue of transphobia, exactly like whites only bathrooms sidesteped racism.
Or, hear me out, we repeal the laws and trans people just continue using the bathroom of their choosing like we’ve been doing without issue for decades.
Amazing how this basic solution is always omitted… Leta do 10 years of culture wars???
deleted by creator
I don’t appreciate pronouns being as wide spread in a working environment. For people who have had to fight for their gender identity I will of course respect that choice - but gender is a rather irrelevant quality in the workplace and I feel like the wide proliferation of pronouns on profiles in Slack/Teams/etc… improperly emphasizes the importance of gender in the workplace. I’d much rather use they/them as blanket pronouns and try and demphasize gender in our language. There are numerous more important factors of people’s personalities that are more interesting than gender like interests (imagine if there was a common pronoun for someone interested in D&D as example) and I’d rather use those factors for identity than gender.
I admit this is likely to be fairly controversial but I do think the world would be a much more pleasant place if gender wasn’t constantly reinforced in language.
deleted by creator
Ah, as someone who doesn’t hide differences do you walk into the office like…
“Hey Nigerian Dan, did you get the memo from Polish John about half-irish half-welsh Sarah’s presentation later today?”
In no way am I trying to erase people’s identities, I just want to highlight that language places an immense emphasis on gender that erases non-binary people and cements it psychologically as an important trait for social interaction.
People are fucking complex, there’s no reason to constantly bucket them into groups by gender identity.
Is this a real issue in your opinion?
Yes, it is to me. English (and most languages tbh) has constructs that constantly reinforce a concept of binary genders and highlight that as an important factor.
When you learned about Mr., Miss, and Mrs. did you find that awkward? To know how to title a woman (absent the more modern Ms.) you’d need to know their marital status - but for dudes it’s whatever? That fucking pissed me off as a kid - how are you supposed to know if someone is married when writing them and who fucking cares…
To me, at least, gendered pronouns are the same way - I’m writing to a person, about a thing, as them as an individual. Gender is generally irrelevant to this interaction so why the fuck is it necessary for it.
Imagine if it was astrology sign instead: I just finished writing up a response to OsrsNeedsF2P. I hope Virgo appreciates the care I put into it because I enjoy the question Virgo asked.
Imagine needing to know someone’s birth sign to talk about them and imagine that English constantly reinforced that birth sign was the way to identify others and that there were twelve and only twelve proper birth signs.
Gender expression is an important part of our identities - I have a complex expression as a non-conforming man - but it’s not the important part of our identity. It’s a factor of our identity and, I’d argue, only really rarely a top five factor. People are philosophers, crafters, writers, artists, hikers, gamers, cooks, painters, etc… those activities we enjoy are much more core to most of our identities. Our gender expression is important but should usually only impact a very narrow portion of our identity.
So to me, yea, it’s a real issue.
You will be called “the new hire” until I eventually learn what your name is in a year or two.
