Someone here

Demanding higher quality of life is what causes lower birth rate among fertile couples. Information, knowledge, and accessibility are more important than education as far as lowering birthrate is concerned. The quality concern on potential child-bearing couples is extended to their offspring on education and nurture. Overcrowding in urbanization may only have marginal influence on birth rate. Witness the birth rate in Sweden, where no overcrowding occurs, and compare that with Hongkong. Incidentally, what a state and its economy want is often not satisfied by its people. Replacement birth-rate and that for a growing economy are ignored as a matter of course. One-child policy is doomed except by fiat in the short term. Incentive like bonus and public housing provision for large family causes no more ripple than a thrown stone on the pond. Thus it would be futile to urge or blame a government like Nigeria for not having an effective birth-rate control policy. Over-population is a debacle which we have to suffer long and patiently, but it will come, peak, and pass in due course. Can we afford to wait? We can take remedial measures, but wait we must.

The issues of the world being over-populated must have been on the mind of quite a few of us for some time. Some may contest that, given what we can do to mitigate, the world may not yet be over-populated. Some may argue that present over-population may not be detrimental if it can be overcome by upcoming technological advancement. Be that as it may, most of us hold the notion that abhorrent over-population is here to stay. Regional Distribution is a relevant issue to be tackled. If there are too many in Nigeria, but too few in Norway, is that not a problem since the density can be averaged out. No, it cannot because there are equally-important parallel issues involved. In this respect, a regional problem is a world problem at this point in time. But why now? Why cannot localized over-population not be solved locally without bothering those outside? Because we have reached the stage historically when one local problem cannot be kept under wraps without spilling over to the rest of the world around it. Witness the immigration wave suffered by Europe from the Middle East. I can see four factors in over-population: 1. Space Comfort Zone is a basic demand by all organism. Limited space imposes limit on the volume of accommodation. Technology can help to some extent, like layering by multi-story development, which will stress on resources below. 2. Resources Limited resources like nutrient and water can only sustain so many. Again, technology can help to increase resources, but such improvement cannot be allowed to outpace population increase. 3. Quality of life Overpopulation would be the case if it serves to lower the quality of life which you should reasonably expect, like peace and quiet, serenity, open space, no pollution, and so on. 4.Nature Natural disasters like forest fire, earthquake, drought, and so on have served as nature's rather cruel way to keep the balance. We cannot be blamed to improve our hygiene and medication to reduce early death, but in so doing we are also fighting against the balance, by counter-measures like birth-control.

Just that, when you look at reality - actual reality, not just social froth and bubble - there are far too many of us and far too few other mammals for sustainability or for sanity. Humans are a "rich diet", so to speak - endlessly complex and coercive. The excess of these attributes with the loss of animal qualities such as innocence and the capacity to mind one's own damn business are driving humanity insane. Look at the news over the last decade. People are going nuts, becoming ever more aggressive and angry. This is not happening due to a shortage of humans. Logically, once a society is building tall apartment blocks to store the multitudes, then they are already overdoing it in terms of sustainability and livability.

Yes, sure, when one looks at the absolute numbers, higher populated areas contribute more, but they contribute far less per capita, which goes to show where should the warning flag be raised more eagerly. And your numbers account for China's 23% as a contribution of the developing world, that is, the contribution of the country that in 2017 stood as the largest economy in the world, surpassing the US in 2014 for the first time in modern history, becoming the world's largest exporter in 2010, and the largest trading nation in 2013. Interestingly, China's population growth rate is only 0.39% (down from 2% in 1955), a tendency that does not correspond to its historical growth in CO2 emissions. Because it is not a direct relation between emissions and the number of people, but between emissions and economic activities. And looking at the cumulative CO2 emissions, there's no doubt that it is not the poor people in Bangladesh to blame for the planet's pollution, but North Americans and Europeans. this case, I see no major amount of guilt landing on religion, unless you count the near-global religion of Predatory Capitalism? Religions have done many bad things in the past, and will probably continue into the future - for as long as it lasts - but I don't think they've contributed to our over-consumption of the Earth's resources any more than any other human social grouping. The core problem is not population per se, but consumption. While it's obvious that more people = more consumption, it's also the case that poor people (those who have yet to maximise their own consumption) consume a huge amount less than rich people, per capita. The problem is consumption, and it began with the Industrial Revolution. These days, the primary cause of consumption is American Predatory Capitalism, and all that goes with it (e.g. continuous-growth economics). We cannot rid ourselves of it, like CoViD-19, so we will die of it.

I'm interested in a long term relationship so I go out and talk to women. I'm able to start a conversation pretty much with any girl. My problem is that after few sentences or minutes of talking I don't know what to say next. I'm able to talk only about "serious" things like carrier, etc. My friends can talk to the women about totall bullshits, make girls laught and I admire that. I don't think that my problem is that I care too much what girls think of me. I simply have nothing to say. I attend Toastmasters and same problem here. When it comes to the Table topics where I have to improvize 1 minute. I say one or two sentences and run out of things to say. Can you recommend me something (book, exercise, video) to train improvization/small talk skills? Does anyone have the same problem?

Having unprotected sex and manufacturing childrens a ton .Social media has made birth rates plummet, if 3rd and 2nd world countries become 1st world countries with AI and robots that can help the countries to better status, then i'm sure it will greatly help the problem of overpopulation

Yes. And we could do something intelligent about it, except for three obstacles: religion, politics and economics four, if you count the inherent specific mental illness

Hahahah

For me, the problem with the super wealthy does not come from how they achieve their money. There will always be problems of exploitation, and the emergence of the ultra rich in the 21st century does not mean to me that more people are being exploited, just that globalism has opened up the route for this wealth. Rather, I take issue with the fact that through capitalism, these people have become ultra wealthy to the point where they wield significant power, political, economic, social and all the like. And this has been the issue with the ultra wealthy historically, the trust busters and so on back in American history, the issue arrises not out of a certain level of wealth, but the power that wealth creates. So my main thrust against the argument that billionaires should not exist is that it is arbitrary to ascribe a level of wealth that should not be achievable, and this is just a slippery slope into state enforced equality of poverty. My counter is that something needs to be done to keep the powerful in check, as we use treaties to ensure peace between nations, the problem of billionaires is how to check their power. My parameters for a solution are as follows: Cannot be done by simply reducing their wealth Cannot lead to "well if we take away billionaires, we shouldn't have millionaires either" Cannot infringe on the personal right to the pursuit of happiness Interested to hear anyone's ideas, critiques on my ideas and the parameters set forth.

@Leo Gura Porn specifically is extremely unhealthy and this has been proven recently. of course there is a distinction between what kind of porn you watch (vanilla stuff vs fucked up shit) and how often do you watch Yada Yada Yada.. The issue I see is it's so easy to become an addiction. Because it's extremely pleasant unlike video games or fast food. Especially for young boys with you know with an explosion of hormones during puberty age. the thing is.. exposure to porn results in dopamine spikes in the brains of the porn-users.. However.. after being exposed to many graphic images.. the brain becomes de-sensitised and unable to be satisfied by ordinary sexual encounters. now what is needed is sexually extreme experiences and hardcore pornography to become sexually aroused. You get how this works? What wasn't so popular and known untill recently as mentioned in OP that watching porn causes physical damage in the brain.. Researchers found less grey matter in the brains of men who watched large amounts of sexually explicit material relative to those who watch it casually or were not exposed to it at all. So I am actually building a case here that porn is harmful and should be avoided.

Look at NDEs. Might be insightful.

What about sexual details ?should I write that too ?

@Preety_India yes we broke up a year ago and I'm looking for a new one.

Yes, I want to know too! I need to practice this a lot. Well actually I don't need to, I don't even have a desire talking about petty, unimportant shit and I only say as much as I need to say about the topics that I wanna talk about, but we all know that people skills are just important to live in the matrix. Especially if you wanna attract girls and be funny, or attract clients. And I want both. So it doesn't matter if I like that idea or not, I must practice this skill. Being good at smalltalk and being funny is a powerful people skill. I have never liked small talk or been good at it. I have tried to fake it many times, because I thought that was what you were supposed to do on dates. But then I just got very annoyed and bored with the faking. I decided that the person who I'm meant to be with has to like me for who I am. When I was on the first date with my current serious girlfriend, I was actually really nervous, because I liked her a lot. Therefore what came out of my mouth was a mix of bad jokes, bizarre comments and on my past and childhood traumas. I made like every imaginable social conduct mistake ever. The date was a blur of sweating, embarrassment and other emotions. Several months later we started to talk about our first date. She said she had thought that I was absolutely adorable and that he actually fell in love with my frankness and the ability to share deep stuff so soon .why ? Should I write on the dream board that my dream girl should be blonde lol ..like is that how you go about this dream board business ?

I like playing music and reading books .hiking sometimes.

Existence is empty .

Solipsism! Oh boy that's a huge one for me lol. This idea started haunting me since I was a child.. I always had this feeling from my early childhood.. That I am actually the only "real" one out there and everyone else are just characters in my dream. Zombies.."cardboard cutouts" in my world. However you wanna call it or think of it. Obviously other people exist as objects of perception in my direct experience.. That's undeniable.. I go out.. I see people everywhere. But are these things" subjects"? Do they have internal self-awareness as I do? Is there someone behind their eyes? It there anybody out there other than me?. The solipsism philosophy doesn't say yes or no to that question contrary to what most people mistakenly misunderstood it.. Solipsism states that one's own mind or subjective experience of the world is the only "certain" thing to exist.. And the existence of other individual minds is "impossible to verify". In other words you are absolutely certain that you are aware right now.. But it's impossible to be certain that I'm (someone here) aware.. In fact why I'm talking to "you"? .. I should say I am aware and "you" are the unsettled mystery. The problem with solipsism is not whether it's objectivey true or not(is it actually the case that I am the only one out there)..but is that it is absolutely true subjectively regardless of that. You are trapped inside your own subjective experience in any case.. So even though I am aware right now from my pov.. From your pov that doesn't matter and there is no such thing.. There is only your awareness.. There is no such thing as "my awareness" in your awareness.. There is only these words in front of you right now and that's the actualilty of what is.. Anything else is just assumptions you add on top of it.."ofcourse there is someone there writing these words.. They couldn't just write themselves lol".. Really?. In your dream.. The entire dream and all the people inside of it..and their actions.. Are nothing but your creation.. They have no Reality of their own outside your imagination.. The only real thing in the dream underneath all the scattered phenomenon is YOU.

I agree that if extreme wealth is a problem then it is mainly a problem of the power that it confers, although I note Ecurb's point that their power is no greater, and probably less, than that of the leaders of the past. It seems to me that one of the most useful commodities that this wealth buys is better access to the machinery of the law. So how about this for a start: make private law firms illegal. Make hiring a lawyer to make one's case in court as strange seeming as buying off the judge and jury. Compel everybody, regardless of wealth, to use court appointed lawyers, and pay those lawyers from general taxation. I'm just spit-balling here. Shoot me down in flames if it sounds mad.

@Medhansh I don't smoke. I stopped smoking ? for a few months now .

It is true, of course, that billionaires wield power. But it seems to me that we tend to exaggerate our own problems. Do the rich in the modern West wield more power today than they did in ancient Egypt, or Rome, or Medieval Europe, or Enlightenment Europe? I doubt it. The rise of democracy has limited their power -- although they still control things more than Joe Schmoe does. In addition, we should recognize that huge strides forward in terms of human well being have arisen with the rise of Capitalism (i.e. in th last 200 years or so). Correlation is not causation, but there might be some connection between increases in average wealth, improved conditions even for the poor, and the leaps forward in infrastructure, health care, and general well-being that we have seen. Indeed, these improvements seem to have stagnated in countries that limited capitalist enterprise. It may well be that the main reasons for improved living conditions are only tangential to capitalism: human longevity has doubled, but medical care, immunizations, samitation, more plentiful food, and safer water might have been introduced without capitalist vigor. Still, looking back on human history it seems strange to complain TOO much; when would any of us rather have lived? Is all this prosperity sustainable? Who knows (least of all me). Can we tax billionaires more aggressively? Of course. Cn we regulate capitalist enterprises to protect the environment? I don't know if we can, but we should. Should we throw out the baby with the bath water? Maybe not.

the human life in a nutshell is nothing but a doomed to fail helpless attempt to freeze formlessness into form and to avoid dissolving into infinity

Seems to me it's a systemic issue, in that a system which results so much inequality that it gives a minority of individuals disproportionate power to maintain that system, we have an inbuilt problem. In democracies this means we have to be persuaded that this is is best system, via culture, media education etc. Not as some conspiracy, just an alignment of interests which dominate public discourse and become accepted norms. So the challenge is how does a Sanders (or Corbyn in the UK) get elected, to go about making systemic change? I'd suggest that in those two cases it's the centrists and some parts of the Left which colluded with the powerful interests which their election would have challenged. Either by having accepted the norms we're fed, or being too timid about the chance of change. The Right has shown that by being bold they can take power, and the Left as usual will be left to pick up the pieces from the wreckage, and try to re-establish a status quo which originally drove disaffected people to vote for change. It's a mugs' game of damage limitation the Left has settled for. After the failure of Sanders in America and Corbyn in Europe, it will be a long time before we get another chance for anything better.

believe your line of thinking here is quite interesting. Of course it seems ridiculous that nothing outside you would truly exist (and that therefore anything that does exist would be part of you), but then you basically quint like the guy in an action movie and say "that's just what I want me to think!" I find this line of thought interesting because it opens up the question of the psychology of God. The way I'm hearing you, and something I think about too, is that God would get bored, or worse, incredibly anxious about just constantly existing and not being able to stop. So therefore, God would want to come up with some semblance of difference in order to have some form of escapism, ecstasy- instead of just sitting around in perfect timelessness all the time. As for whether you would know better, my thoughts on solipsism focus on the paradox of absolute unity. For example, our idea of language only makes sense when I am here talking to you, and every word means something different. But if "I" am the only thing, then there are no different words, different people, or different things- only me. Anything in particular that we would say exists really doesn't, since it isn't really what we normally think of it as being. Therefore you could as easily say that I (God) am nothing as that I am everything, since nothing that we typically think exists really exists as we think it does (as a discrete object).

just want to add, that though solipsism and radical skepticism are logically difficult if not impossible to refute, I myself am not willing to test whether they are practical. I'll eat my breakfast and assume that my friends and family exist outside my imagination. Until I can alter the laws of physics, and prove that I am the source if reality, I will make the intuitive presumptions that we all make every day we wake up.

I jus watched leos recent episode on solipsism and I have some questions for y'all about solipsism and I hope you guys can answer them. I feel like im getting a misinterpretation about the idea and it would be great if you guys could clear everything up. To begin, i am wondering if what if as a god I created the idea of solipsism to be less probable to comfort myself into the world? and the second one being why would "I" create my own suffering if "I" am a god, wouldn't I know better? Lastly, is there any concrete agrument against solipsism? Like if I were to transfer into another body or somehow and then come back to mine, would that help disprove it? Adding on to the topic of solipsism, I wrote down some discussion about solipsism and am wondering if you guys could confirm the accuracy of the statements I am about to make about solipsism. Against the idea of solipsism I have written down Occam's Razor does not support it and secondly it creates an extremist version of the first cause dilemma (where did I come from) this wouldn't matter if only solipsism wasn't based on its ability to answer the hard problem of epistemology. Therefore the belief system as a whole fails. Finally, there would be infinite possibilities of the world that could be taken as true; I could be actually a dragon dreaming on mars right now.