[Towered]

Mark Carney is now scheduled to be the keynote speaker at the Federal Liberal convention on Thursday evening. He's often bandied about as a potential star candidate for the party, and also as a potential leadership candidate some day post-JT. In a very "I want to be leader" move he also just published his memoirs with a very contemporary politics title "Value(s): Building a Better World for All" which is also notably a "Heather's Pick" at Indigo, so we know he's got some big Liberal donor money behind him should he go for it.

Barring an embarrassing election loss, I don't see Trudeau going anywhere anytime soon. The opposition is weak and in perpetual turmoil it seems. That being said, I could definitely picture Carney as Liberal leader eventually. He has a "prime ministerial" presence to him.

 

[Jonny5]

Barring an embarrassing election loss, I don't see Trudeau going anywhere anytime soon. The opposition is weak and in perpetual turmoil it seems. That being said, I could definitely picture Carney as Liberal leader eventually. He has a "prime ministerial" presence to him.

For sure he's not looking to be leader "now", but I suspect he wants to get in the obligatory house experience before running, likely with a cabinet position where he has some public visibility, so that would mean he's going to run somewhere in Toronto in the next election, whenever that is. The question is what seat he would go for? The whole city went Liberal last election. Would there be anyone potentially retiring?
One I think is possible is Carolyn Bennett in St. Pauls. She turns 71 later this year. It's a hardcore Liberal riding too, easy to parachute in someone who may acutally only live "nearby."

 

[Admiral Beez]

Not like this. This is a LARGE payment unlike our baby bonus.

The world does not need more people, nor can the world sustain infinite population growth. If we can accept these two points we can see that a population decline is needed until we can bottom out at a sustainable level of people. I was born in 1971, the population was 3.7 billion, we‘re now reaching 8 billion, surely we’re reaching peak human?

Yes there will be an adjustment as we deal with an increasingly aging and thus unproductive demographic, but automation will likely change how labour and economies work, with fewer people doing anything useful, everyone else on UBI. It’s that or rebellion and revolution as scarcity and 1% hoarding of resources increases.

 

[Richard White]

The world does not need more people, nor can the world sustain infinite population growth. If we can accept these two points we can see that a population decline is needed until we can bottom out at a sustainable level of people. I was born in 1971, the population was 3.7 billion, we‘re now reaching 8 billion, surely we’re reaching peak human?

Yes there will be an adjustment as we deal with an increasingly aging and thus unproductive demographic, but automation will likely change how labour and economies work, with fewer people doing anything useful, everyone else on UBI. It’s that or rebellion and revolution as scarcity and 1% hoarding of resources increases.

With all the Baby and Echo Boomers soon to die out from old-ish age it makes sense that there will soon be a drop in population. Keep in mind, those born in the 50s are now 70 or older. Someone born in the 60s is approaching 60.

Eventually there will be a significant population decrease in areas like Asia and Europe where the median age skews towards the aged. I can see the global population nosediving in the next 20 years.

What we need is a world war. Something that wipes out a large chunk of the population for a bit. We have not had any global calamity for a few decades which really has contributed to the population boom.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What we need is a world war. Something that wipes out a large chunk of the population for a bit. We have not had any global calamity for a few decades which really has contributed to the population boom.

Why don't we focus on reducing unprotected shagging before we go full nuclear winter?

 

[afransen]

The Thanos snap approach to population control won't work, and is deeply unethical (he was a villain, if you didn't catch that from the text). Population growth is a problem that takes care of itself. Most of the world is below replacement rate. Those areas that are not will become so as women there become better educated and have more opportunities.

 

[Towered]

The world does not need more people, nor can the world sustain infinite population growth. If we can accept these two points we can see that a population decline is needed until we can bottom out at a sustainable level of people. I was born in 1971, the population was 3.7 billion, we‘re now reaching 8 billion, surely we’re reaching peak human?

Yes there will be an adjustment as we deal with an increasingly aging and thus unproductive demographic, but automation will likely change how labour and economies work, with fewer people doing anything useful, everyone else on UBI. It’s that or rebellion and revolution as scarcity and 1% hoarding of resources increases.

Depends on where. There are plenty of countries that would benefit from at least being able to achieve the replacement rate of 2.1.

 

[Richard White]

Why don't we focus on reducing unprotected shagging before we go full nuclear winter?

We did after the start of the Aids epidemic. Around the same time China started limiting breeding.

 

[picard102]

With all the Baby and Echo Boomers soon to die out from old-ish age it makes sense that there will soon be a drop in population. Keep in mind, those born in the 50s are now 70 or older. Someone born in the 60s is approaching 60.

Eventually there will be a significant population decrease in areas like Asia and Europe where the median age skews towards the aged. I can see the global population nosediving in the next 20 years.

What we need is a world war. Something that wipes out a large chunk of the population for a bit. We have not had any global calamity for a few decades which really has contributed to the population boom.

Or perhaps a pandemic?

 

[Jonny5]

What we need is a world war. Something that wipes out a large chunk of the population for a bit. We have not had any global calamity for a few decades which really has contributed to the population boom.

There was one big calamity that I can think of in the 2004 tsunami, which killed several hundred thousand (at least 200,000, and possibly double that). It's actually interesting to look back on that being so recent and how little is covered in media with such a massive number of people kiled in only minutes.

 

[Towered]

There was one big calamity that I can think of in the 2004 tsunami, which killed several hundred thousand (at least 200,000, and possibly double that). It's actually interesting to look back on that being so recent and how little is covered in media with such a massive number of people kiled in only minutes.

It didn't affect privileged whites in Western countries.

 

[Richard White]

There was one big calamity that I can think of in the 2004 tsunami, which killed several hundred thousand (at least 200,000, and possibly double that). It's actually interesting to look back on that being so recent and how little is covered in media with such a massive number of people kiled in only minutes.

I am thinking more along the lines of mass extinction via natural disaster. Something like Yellowstone Park erupting.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

There was one big calamity that I can think of in the 2004 tsunami, which killed several hundred thousand (at least 200,000, and possibly double that). It's actually interesting to look back on that being so recent and how little is covered in media with such a massive number of people kiled in only minutes.

It was fairly well covered back then (no serious social media to speak of at the time either). Not to the breathless extent as something like 9/11 was - but proximity, symbolism and sheer political impact makes a good case for the difference. And I don't think it is just "The West" that eventually dropped the story either. Ultimately it was a regional, not global issue.

I am thinking more along the lines of mass extinction via natural disaster. Something like Yellowstone Park erupting.

Stop watching 2012.

Or perhaps a pandemic?

I don't know about that - for all the damage from COVID, we managed to create multiple, highly effective vaccines to an entirely new virus within a year. You can try an asteroid hitting the planet - but we are also at the point where we can deal with that (and if we knew we're the bullseye, you can bet that no expense will be spared creating a response to it - unlike the dribs and drabs we devote to the problem right now as a theoretical exercise). There is no parallel to our technological prowess in history. The question we have now is whether we want to devote the effort to deal with these issues, not whether we have the ability to deal with these issues. We are our own worst enemies.

AoD

 

[afransen]

There are some astronomical phenomena that could eliminate life on earth, but that's probably not what people are thinking/hoping for as population control.

I'm perhaps not so pessimistic. Technology can help us lower the impact humanity has on the earth's ecosystems. A lot of damage we inflict today is the result of policy failures. I'm not sure lower populations can compensate for bad governance.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

There are some astronomical phenomena that could eliminate life on earth, but that's probably not what people are thinking/hoping for as population control.

I'm perhaps not so pessimistic. Technology can help us lower the impact humanity has on the earth's ecosystems. A lot of damage we inflict today is the result of policy failures. I'm not sure lower populations can compensate for bad governance.

Of course there are - you can have a gamma ray burst aimed straight at us and finish us off (though we will be at a point soon to be able to at least predict some of these events), etc - but that's not remotely likely compared to the umpteen stupidities we can do/are doing to ourselves.

I really do NOT like Elon Musk as a person, but he is right that we need to spread out as a species.

AoD