Comments by "joe public" (@joepublic3933) on "TED"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
@spacemonkey1776 Where indeed is the line? I don't know, so I refuse to decide for them. Society as a whole decides things together (in an ideal situation, which of course exists in no country on Earth!), after debating among experts. These ethical/moral decisions are always flexible and change with time. The difference between kicking a woman, thus killing her baby, and her deciding? Precisely that: her deciding. Big difference. But I'll never convince you otherwise and nor will you, it's too deeply ingrained in me: it's not up to me to decide what a woman does with her body or the life that she can choose to give or not.
We have the right to tell someone not to steal or murder because we've decided we have the right. Do we have the right to kill someone who disagrees? If you vote for a government that supports the death penalty, are you not guilty of murder? Millions of kids were sent off to fight the first and second world wars; nobody asked them if they wanted to. They went to prison if they refused, or forced labour. Again, where does your 60 million abortions figure come from?
As for the elderly people comparison, I don't think it's equivalent at all. To answer anyway, no, I don't think it'd be right..... but future generations might decide otherwise! However, I think they should have the right to turn off your life support if you wish them to. I'm pro-euthanasia in certain circumstances.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tehillah1000 So much wrong in your post.
First, he does not mention lowering population. I'll get back to that.
Second it's carbon dioxide, not monoxide.
Third he doesn't skip onto the next topic; he develops the main topic.
Fourth, everyone obviously does understand him in the audience.
Now, what does he actually say:
"Now the world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 %, but there we see an increase of about 1.3."
The 10-15% refers to the increase rate of 1.3 that could be brought down.
That therefore implies slowing a growth rate, and thus no murdering at all.
Context. You have to finish the end of the sentence to understand it. The population will continue to increase up to its point of stability, but slower than if there are no improvements to living conditions and education.
Next, the equation:
CO2 = P x S x E x C
P= people
S= services per person
E= energy per service
C = carbon dioxide per unit energy
The last one, C, must come down to zero because all the others will increase, even if you slow down the rate of increase.
"Innovating to zero" = creating alternative energy sources that do not produce CO2.
Simple maths: anything x anything x anything x zero = zero.
This is why the title of the talk is about innovating to zero emissions; you can stop the excess CO2 production from industry by changing the energy source for the industry. So, no skipping subjects, just getting to the point.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cardinal3728 I've been trying to have intelligent conversations for a while on this subject, but was confronted constantly by the same ignorance. Up to the point where I wrote this:
"My predicted conversation with any conspiracy theorist:
Here's what will happen, if we debate a bit: You'll say "Bill Gates wants to kill half the population, he was chucked out of India, Melinda is a man." I'll ask you for your sources, you'll either say "google it" or "do your own research" or "I don't give links anymore," or « follow the money », or "watch the Corbett report" or you'll just carry on spouting random rubbish.
Then I'll give you my sources, which clearly show you're wrong, but you'll refuse to read (yes READ, not watch, sorry!), saying it's all just biased reports paid by "Big Pharma". Conveniently for you, everything which doesn't go in your sense is sponsored by Bill Gates, including me and anyone else who disagrees with you. Since "almost all media" is apparently funded by Gates (funny how it includes media from every single country in the world), except what's on youtube (which is ironic because it's mainly thanks to him that we're on youtube in the first place), it's impossible to provide you with any evidence. Yet you will ask repeatedly, saying mine isn't good enough without giving any yourself. You will spout on about how evil he is, with lots of CAPITAL LETTERS (you're probably catholic, so I can understand that anyone who promotes contraception is evil to you, since you haven't evolved from the Dark Ages), and completely ignore anything I say. When I ask if at the very least you use Linux and not Windows, you won't reply.
Am I wrong?"
Up to now, not one single person has replied intelligently to that. Very few have replied at all. it tends to stop them in their tracks! Those that have replied have just dug their hole deeper. If it's any consolation, it's probably only a small number of people who leave comments here, so does not represent the population as a whole. At least, I hope so! Otherwise, we're all f**ked!
2
-
2
-
@bbrayshay Don't worry; the only ones saying that are paranoid Catholics.
I'll admit though that their outrageous lies do seem to be taking hold in the general public, probably due to them saturating social media with their rubbish. You can always tell though, that it's them; from their idiotic outcries with regards to contraception, or their highly original responses to logic: "wake up sheeple, do your own research, follow the money, watch the Corbett Report"..etc
They choose to ignore that making money out of vaccines and eradicating most of the population just don't go together. They're also obsessed with a "depopulation agenda" which, despite this video being ten years old, and the population one billion bigger, doesn't seem to deter them! You can see further down in the comments my "predicted conversation with any conspiracy theorist". For the moment, nobody has replied with anything other than what I predicted they would!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You didn't see any answers in the comments? You didn't look very far then.
let me summarize for you:
The equation lists several factors,
CO2 = P x S x E x C
P= people
S= services per person
E= energy per service
C = carbon dioxide per unit energy
The last one, C, must come down to zero because all the others will increase, even if you slow down the rate of increase.
"Innovating to zero" = creating alternative energy sources that do not produce CO2.
Simple maths: anything x anything x anything x zero = zero.
Population is mentioned as a side note, and he clearly says that even if you slow the rate of increase (the famous 10-15%, which is rate of increase, NOT actual population), it won't change much in the way of CO2 output.
You've made the same mistake as lots of people: you've put quote marks around phrases that YOU invented, not what he actually said. This is very misleading for others, and probably how you got misled yourself. Some people actively edit videos to cut out the bits where he explains himself. Many people obviously don't listen to the end of videos like this one which haven't been edited. If they did, they'd realise it all makes perfect sense and the depopulation stuff is just lies.
Proof: exactly as his figures suggest, the population has INCREASED by a billion since this talk was given. Where's the depopulation there?
So when you say "it's pretty absurd to think he's talking about anything other than lowering population " it just shows you didn't even listen to the end of the equation, let alone the whole talk! It also shows that your maths skills are sadly lacking. Now please, before replying, listen to the talk again, bearing in mind what I've told you. At least listen to the end of the equation; it's only about 5 minutes in.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2