What's on your mind?

[GoatmasterGeneral]

32 minutes ago, navybsn said:

Yup GG'S got it. Way east of us. Impact starts around 3 hours from here with landfall being 5-6 hours away. I was just down that way. One of my favorite parts of the state. Completely opposite of anything you would imagine about Florida. Few tourists and attractions. Lots of fishing. The beaches are more appropriately coast lines rather than sandy beaches. Fairly rural and among the poorest areas of the state. Lots of swamp and trees, so the biggest area of impact is uninhabited, but still a good deal of people down that way. That area doesn't see a lot of storm action which is worrisome because a lot of that property doesn't face regular stress tests and is likely below code (heavily revised for new construction post-Andrew in 90). But, if I know these Crackers (not the derogatory meaning of the term, it's actually what the residents along the Forgotten Coast refer to themselves "Florida Crackers"), they'll survive ok. It will be the big buck investors and people with vacation homes who will be begging for government intervention to to rebuild and reimburse. Happens every time and it's gross. The people who live there every day scratching out a living get jack shit for attention but the investors and weekenders who have plenty of resources suck up everything. Then all of our insurance rates go up even more (mine went up $2500 this year alone). See it every time. I love the Gulf Coast and the people who live here for the most part, but fuck I hate Florida.

Thanks FA for thinking of me! Not this time, but when you live here, it's just that. Next time could be us. September - November are prime time Gulf hurricane season and shit can change in a heartbeat. The last Cat 5 (Michael) went from a squall to annihilating Panama City in about 4 days. We're always on high alert this time of year no matter what the popular memes would have you believe.

You guys are somewhat protected though, right? You've got that Gulf Breeze penninsula that sticks out there shielding the city of Pensacola and then Pensacola Beach and the Gulf Islands Natl Seashore shielding that. You still have the high winds and rain to deal with when a hurrican comes through, but the barrier islands mitigate the storm surge, no? Or does it work against you and the water comes in but can't get back out? Bet them big resort hotels out there on Pensacola Beach pay a bundle in insurance. Was only 3 years ago Sally washed your new bridge away and she was only a category 2 (105mph - 169 kmph)

 

[Dead1]

10 hours ago, MacabreEternal said:

 Ass kissing isn't a thing I have ever seen work for anyone, usually only seen it deployed by folks who are incompetent at the vast majority of their role and need to mask it with excessive and gratuitous praise to the higher ups.  Thankful to work with folks who have all got to where they are via honest, hard work.  Not taking exception to your experience @Dead1, just sharing my own personal experience. 

 

In all organisations I have worked in (accounting, stockbroking/financial planning, IT and many years in health administration) hard work gets you absolutely nowhere.

 

In all these places hard work just meant more work.  The networking types and often outright arse kissers got promoted.  In stockbroking, there was a real culture of "pets" that would get promoted or people the company viewed as important for other things.

Eg One girl got promoted to full financial  planner after 6 months.  Everyone said she was shit at her job.  But her dad was rich so she got a promotion so not only did he transfer his business to the company but all his rich mates.

Eg there were a couple of known "pets" in our corporate HQ when I was in stockbroking.  Again they got promoted despite occasionally getting caught doing borderline illegal things.  I spoke out when I was asked to do illegal work but it did me no good career wise, despite main manager agreeing with my stand.

They actually kept promising me a promotion but never gave me one.  They had done that to the previous person in the job and then the person that came after me.  They held out a carrot but never intended to give it.  It was to keep us motivated whilst working under a supervisor who was a complete bully to his staff (one girl even hit him) but earned the company millions (mainly because he inherited a ton of clients when most of the agency's other brokers left over a dispute!).

 

Eg at the university I worked in, one of my colleagues was sacked because he was a hard worker.  The supervisor who was lazy and did nothing, felt threatened by him and had him sacked on spurious grounds.  It became an industrial issue and my colleague was found to have been illegally dismissed though by that stage he was so bitter he decided not to return.

 

Eg in the health department I work for (first Primary Health and then Mental Health).  People are indeed promoted regardless of competence.  Good workers are basically overworked and then burn out and leave.  There is no performance management of shit workers.  Shit workers are allowed to linger and do as they please.  On several occasions shit workers were promoted simply to get them out of service delivery areas where they were deemed to be too incompetent and potentially dangerous to clients.

In one case one guy was promoted three times each time managing a bigger unit.  The hiring manager admitted it was literally to get this guy into an area where he had ample other senior staff to minimise effects of his perennial fuckups.

It got so out of hand they did end up having to demote him to a senior nurse because he was a walking disaster but that took years of industrial action and negotiation.

 

In another case we kept a social worker on the books for 10 years despite her not being allowed to see patients on her own.  Again her probation was signed off despite her being known to be dangerous with clients.

And they've now promoted a lazy guy who is known to nap in his office and who does literally nothing to a senior management position overseeing 4 separate services and 60 positions. 

Suffice to say this culture of protection and arse kissing means my workplace has been on national TV a couple of times for killing over a dozen patients in both major hospitals due to negligence and due to hiding a paedophile nurse working in a kids ward from the 1990s-2010s.  And nothing improves, it just gets worse a little bit each year.

Eg just this month.

I am probably one of the most effective people in my job and I have been very proactive and have a much greater knowledge of the job that most of my colleagues.  There are also several other staff who work even harder than me but don't display the same knowledge due to lack of interest.

When it came to backfilling the boss' leave the guy who has been asked to backfill is a lazy bastard who had delegated much of his work to other more submissive colleagues and who then openly refused to do a lot of his remaining work.

But hey he plays the game and unlike me he doesn't tell people how it is. So he gets to backfill the boss for a couple of weeks.

I checked with other staff and no-one else was asked.  One even commented that the lazy guy's tiny remaining workload was probably the reason he was given the higher duties.

So by literally refusing to work, he is getting a temporary promotion.

 

 

So sadly in my experience in 20+ years of working in Tasmania in both private and government sector, hard work gets you nowhere except burned out and discarded.

 

[navybsn]

26 minutes ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

You guys are somewhat protected though, right? You've got that Gulf Breeze penninsula that sticks out there shielding the city of Pensacola and then Pensacola Beach and the Gulf Islands Natl Seashore shielding that. You still have the high winds and rain to deal with when a hurrican comes through, but the barrier islands mitigate the storm surge, no? Or does it work against you and the water comes in but can't get back out? Bet them big resort hotels out there on Pensacola Beach pay a bundle in insurance. Was only 3 years ago Sally washed your new bridge away and she was only a category 2 (105mph - 169 kmph)

 

Yeah about that. Those barrier islands aren't worth the sand they're made of. Too close to the mainland to do any good. Most of Pensacola is fairly low lying and has poor drainage, so the storm surge still plays a factor especially combined with the intense rain to create a lot of flash flooding. But unless you are right on the coast or along a body of water that connects, storm surge isn't your problem (will note here that by some genius all city and county government operations are headquartered about 3 blocks from the water). I'm 70 ft above sea level and about 10 miles inland on a hill. So not much worry here about water.

The real trouble comes from the wind and the tornadoes spawned off the storm. Falling trees due to saturated ground and downed power lines will kill and having your roof ripped off in the middle of a mother nature mosh pit is downright unfunny. A lot also depends on which side of the storm you end up on. The upper right quadrant is where the real shit goes down. I mean it's all bad, but when that corner gets you, it's Jimmy Superfly Snukka off the top rope. Cleaning up and rebuilding, which Floridians are only outmatched on by the Japanese, takes a bit. Like you yankees and your winter weather though, we've got the tools and experience to get it done quickly.

The major problem for most people though in a non-catastrophic storm (Cat 3 or less) is inconvenience. No power, no gas, nowhere to get food, price gouging that lasts long after the cleanup is done, and limited emergency services because they are diverted to other needs. Bay County went a month with no cell service after Michael and up to 5 weeks without power in some places. No matter how much you prepare, that's gonna suck balls. Especially in August when it's 105 every day. We've got generators and freezers, gas and water stocks that should last a week. Can still exhaust those fairly easily and you can't realistically store much more than that in a residential area. So you get real good at strategizing and managing. Camping at home we say. In these really poor areas where this storm hit, the ability to stockpile enough to ride out the aftermath is extremely limited and all of the emergency agencies and volunteers will only be there until it falls out of the news cycle or kickoff on college football Saturday, whichever comes first.

Now about that bridge. You're spot on, that was Sally. The 3 mile bridge over the bay was under construction at the time. One span was up and functional and they had started the second after demolishing the original bridge. The Scandinavian contractor who obviously had no experience with tropical weather despite having decades of experience with multi year projects in the state failed to properly secure their construction barges before the storm. 17 barges total were flung all over the place and into the bridge stanchions causing major structural damage. They found those barges in people's yards, on roads, even a few about 10 miles north up the Escambia river. Aside from the financial losses to the company (which I say fuck em, tie your shit up), left about half the population of the area with a 100 mile round trip to work every day that would normally be about 10. Wasn't the first time a bridge was knocked out in the 2000's either. The Northside bridge got taken out during Ivan in 05.

53 minutes ago, Dead1 said:

 

In all organisations I have worked in (accounting, stockbroking/financial planning, IT and many years in health administration) hard work gets you absolutely nowhere.

 

In all these places hard work just meant more work.  The networking types and often outright arse kissers got promoted.  In stockbroking, there was a real culture of "pets" that would get promoted or people the company viewed as important for other things.

Eg One girl got promoted to full financial  planner after 6 months.  Everyone said she was shit at her job.  But her dad was rich so she got a promotion so not only did he transfer his business to the company but all his rich mates.

Eg there were a couple of known "pets" in our corporate HQ when I was in stockbroking.  Again they got promoted despite occasionally getting caught doing borderline illegal things.  I spoke out when I was asked to do illegal work but it did me no good career wise, despite main manager agreeing with my stand.

They actually kept promising me a promotion but never gave me one.  They had done that to the previous person in the job and then the person that came after me.  They held out a carrot but never intended to give it.  It was to keep us motivated whilst working under a supervisor who was a complete bully to his staff (one girl even hit him) but earned the company millions (mainly because he inherited a ton of clients when most of the agency's other brokers left over a dispute!).

 

Eg at the university I worked in, one of my colleagues was sacked because he was a hard worker.  The supervisor who was lazy and did nothing, felt threatened by him and had him sacked on spurious grounds.  It became an industrial issue and my colleague was found to have been illegally dismissed though by that stage he was so bitter he decided not to return.

 

Eg in the health department I work for (first Primary Health and then Mental Health).  People are indeed promoted regardless of competence.  Good workers are basically overworked and then burn out and leave.  There is no performance management of shit workers.  Shit workers are allowed to linger and do as they please.  On several occasions shit workers were promoted simply to get them out of service delivery areas where they were deemed to be too incompetent and potentially dangerous to clients.

In one case one guy was promoted three times each time managing a bigger unit.  The hiring manager admitted it was literally to get this guy into an area where he had ample other senior staff to minimise effects of his perennial fuckups.

It got so out of hand they did end up having to demote him to a senior nurse because he was a walking disaster but that took years of industrial action and negotiation.

 

In another case we kept a social worker on the books for 10 years despite her not being allowed to see patients on her own.  Again her probation was signed off despite her being known to be dangerous with clients.

And they've now promoted a lazy guy who is known to nap in his office and who does literally nothing to a senior management position overseeing 4 separate services and 60 positions. 

Suffice to say this culture of protection and arse kissing means my workplace has been on national TV a couple of times for killing over a dozen patients in both major hospitals due to negligence and due to hiding a paedophile nurse working in a kids ward from the 1990s-2010s.  And nothing improves, it just gets worse a little bit each year.

Eg just this month.

I am probably one of the most effective people in my job and I have been very proactive and have a much greater knowledge of the job that most of my colleagues.  There are also several other staff who work even harder than me but don't display the same knowledge due to lack of interest.

When it came to backfilling the boss' leave the guy who has been asked to backfill is a lazy bastard who had delegated much of his work to other more submissive colleagues and who then openly refused to do a lot of his remaining work.

But hey he plays the game and unlike me he doesn't tell people how it is. So he gets to backfill the boss for a couple of weeks.

I checked with other staff and no-one else was asked.  One even commented that the lazy guy's tiny remaining workload was probably the reason he was given the higher duties.

So by literally refusing to work, he is getting a temporary promotion.

 

 

So sadly in my experience in 20+ years of working in Tasmania in both private and government sector, hard work gets you nowhere except burned out and discarded.

 

Let me guess, there's a union where you are now. Financial services and academia are notorious cutthroat industries, but your description of your current field mirrors my own in a government sector with a strong union. Don't get me wrong, I think unions are fine for the most part, but the particular flavor we get in the public sector are very good at protecting those stellar employees you mention and making managers go through hell to take any action against them. The amount of legal nonsense that they get put in HR regulation makes it even worse. Sometimes the only reasonable option is to get that employee off your hands and off to someone else's. Not saying it's right, but I do understand why it happens.

[Dead1]

Clearly humans shouldn't be building cities in that particular spot!

[navybsn]

5 minutes ago, Dead1 said:

Clearly humans shouldn't be building cities in that particular spot!

Same is true for much of the region. Major population centers should not be located in the sort of geography prone to seasonal storms that are completely unpredictable. Especially when you build them on land basically at or below sea level.

[Dead1]

16 minutes ago, navybsn said:

 

Let me guess, there's a union where you are now. Financial services and academia are notorious cutthroat industries, but your description of your current field mirrors my own in a government sector with a strong union. Don't get me wrong, I think unions are fine for the most part, but the particular flavor we get in the public sector are very good at protecting those stellar employees you mention and making managers go through hell to take any action against them. The amount of legal nonsense that they get put in HR regulation makes it even worse. Sometimes the only reasonable option is to get that employee off your hands and off to someone else's. Not saying it's right, but I do understand why it happens.

Yep the nursing and health services unions are strong and active and protect shit sticks.  In my area (financial administration) the unions are non-existent in terms of representation.

No unions when I worked in stockbroking, accounting and IT.  There probably should have been as staff were exploited (I was ripped off in all 3 of those industries - 1 lied about salary, 1 underpaid me and 1 didn't pay my compulsory superannuation (pension fund)) and bullied (or illegal sacked) without any protection.

 

And the unions aren't promoting arse kissers into high level positions in health - that's management.

The unspoken values of senior managers in my service are:

1. Do as your told.

2. Don't ever question high level management even when they're wrong and even if they are endangering patient lives (hence lots of patients dead due to negligence and pedophile allowed to prowl a kids' ward for 20 years).

3. Don't ever raise any problems, however major.  I found this out the hard way when I attended a senior management meeting and was shouted at by statewide manager  for mentioning  a 4 year problem with contracting after a senior doctor raised issues with contracts.

4. If the minister wants something, the minister gets it regardless of how stupid it is.  In one case the minister accidentally announced a service intended for adults was for children.  Now it's a program for children even though the model of care was not suited for children.

It's the ultimate group think environment.

[RelentlessOblivion]

first service? Ha no worries, cracking a bottle of wine tonight to celebrate

[Dead1]

41 minutes ago, navybsn said:

Same is true for much of the region. Major population centers should not be located in the sort of geography prone to seasonal storms that are completely unpredictable. Especially when you build them on land basically at or below sea level.

What people will do for warm weather and waterfront views!

[GoatmasterGeneral]

1 hour ago, navybsn said:

Yeah about that. Those barrier islands aren't worth the sand they're made of. Too close to the mainland to do any good. Most of Pensacola is fairly low lying and has poor drainage, so the storm surge still plays a factor especially combined with the intense rain to create a lot of flash flooding. But unless you are right on the coast or along a body of water that connects, storm surge isn't your problem (will note here that by some genius all city and county government operations are headquartered about 3 blocks from the water). I'm 70 ft above sea level and about 10 miles inland on a hill. So not much worry here about water.

The real trouble comes from the wind and the tornadoes spawned off the storm. Falling trees due to saturated ground and downed power lines will kill and having your roof ripped off in the middle of a mother nature mosh pit is downright unfunny. A lot also depends on which side of the storm you end up on. The upper right quadrant is where the real shit goes down. I mean it's all bad, but when that corner gets you, it's Jimmy Superfly Snukka off the top rope. Cleaning up and rebuilding, which Floridians are only outmatched on by the Japanese, takes a bit. Like you yankees and your winter weather though, we've got the tools and experience to get it done quickly.

The major problem for most people though in a non-catastrophic storm (Cat 3 or less) is inconvenience. No power, no gas, nowhere to get food, price gouging that lasts long after the cleanup is done, and limited emergency services because they are diverted to other needs. Bay County went a month with no cell service after Michael and up to 5 weeks without power in some places. No matter how much you prepare, that's gonna suck balls. Especially in August when it's 105 every day. We've got generators and freezers, gas and water stocks that should last a week. Can still exhaust those fairly easily and you can't realistically store much more than that in a residential area. So you get real good at strategizing and managing. Camping at home we say. In these really poor areas where this storm hit, the ability to stockpile enough to ride out the aftermath is extremely limited and all of the emergency agencies and volunteers will only be there until it falls out of the news cycle or kickoff on college football Saturday, whichever comes first.

Now about that bridge. You're spot on, that was Sally. The 3 mile bridge over the bay was under construction at the time. One span was up and functional and they had started the second after demolishing the original bridge. The Scandinavian contractor who obviously had no experience with tropical weather despite having decades of experience with multi year projects in the state failed to properly secure their construction barges before the storm. 17 barges total were flung all over the place and into the bridge stanchions causing major structural damage. They found those barges in people's yards, on roads, even a few about 10 miles north up the Escambia river. Aside from the financial losses to the company (which I say fuck em, tie your shit up), left about half the population of the area with a 100 mile round trip to work every day that would normally be about 10. Wasn't the first time a bridge was knocked out in the 2000's either. The Northside bridge got taken out during Ivan in 05.

I can relate though, I've lived through my share of hurricanes. They've often weakened some by the time they get all the way up here if they've spent any time over land, but we get enough that get back out over the water, gain momentum and hit us with everything they've got. Last big one I remember was "Superstorm Sandy." A category 3 hurricane (111 - 129 mph) when she hit Cuba, downgraded to cat 1 (74 - 95mph) as she came up the Atlantic and then was downgraded to a "post-tropical cyclone " by the time she slammed into the Jersey shore. 1,000 miles across with 80mph sustained winds and gusts up over 100.  I was stil on Long Island then in Oct 2012 and she fucked us up good. Over 50 Billion in damages across NY/NJ, 69 billion overall, that's the 3rd most in US history after Katrina in NOLA '05 and Andrew in south Florida '92. Sandy left 233 dead in her wake, 53 of those in NY state. Quarter of a million cars were ruined by salt water from the storm surge. Tens of thousands of LI homes destroyed or rendered uninhabitable. Many coastal roadways were washed away aong the south shore all the way out to the Hamptons. Wind knocked many thousands of trees and power lines down, over half a million without power on LI, 2.2 million for the state of NY. We got really lucky and only lost power for about 3 days, but I knew many who were out from 2 to 5 weeks. Everything was closed, so I didn't have to go to work for a few days. I remember driving around in search of gas for what must have been an hour or two one day and then waiting on line for nearly an hour once I finally found a station that was open in Farmingdale. Was waiting for them to tell me they'd run out of gas by the time I got up close to the pumps, but fortunately they didn't. Glad that shit doesn't happen too often up here.

[Sheol]

18 hours ago, navybsn said:

 2) I'm the guy that gets things done. Got a problem you can't solve, give it to me I'll fix it. My wife and daughter call me the "Fixer". There is no load too heavy or task too big. Producing results, being dependable, and tackling the tough stuff has gotten me a long way.

There's a price though. I have very little "work-life balance". I never really stop working. Brain is always turning things over. There's always stress.

I was just going to say, that type of attitude is really really hard to acheive and still have a healthy work/life balance (or a healthy, connected family life). It takes a toll. Good on you for being insightful and aware of your positives and negatives, and I'm guessing having an understanding family.

If I didn't have a family I think I would work way too much, it's fun and I enjoy the challanges I encounter. I've had long bouts of working evenings/nights and weekends to hit deadlines or just catch up, but it's def. taken a toll on my family. Trying to scale it down to a more sustainable level now, but if I were single I think all I'd do would be work and go to concerts, haha.

 

[navybsn]

1 hour ago, Sheol said:

I was just going to say, that type of attitude is really really hard to acheive and still have a healthy work/life balance (or a healthy, connected family life). It takes a toll. Good on you for being insightful and aware of your positives and negatives, and I'm guessing having an understanding family.

If I didn't have a family I think I would work way too much, it's fun and I enjoy the challanges I encounter. I've had long bouts of working evenings/nights and weekends to hit deadlines or just catch up, but it's def. taken a toll on my family. Trying to scale it down to a more sustainable level now, but if I were single I think all I'd do would be work and go to concerts, haha.

 

I can't say it's healthy for me. I'm a workaholic and that will likely never change. It's great for career reasons, but I do have a few regrets over the years that I should have done less work and more family, but that's the past and I can only try to do better in the future. Being in the military during my formative years is probably the origin. The attitude there is "mission first" and "your family is not issued in your seabag". Essential for military success but fairly toxic for healthy family life. I'm sure it contributes greatly to the high divorce rate among service members. Nursing doesn't help either as shift work where 15 hour days are not unusual in hospital. I've escaped from that but still pull my fair share of 10-11 hour days and weekends. Fortunately, I've got a good chick related to me by marriage who's also a military brat. She's always been supportive. Been around 27 years, so it's safe to say she's cool with it.

With age though, I'm getting better. Forcing myself to take time off and having a great boss who ensures that I'm not working when I'm not supposed to also helps. I mean I still do, but she gives me the business whenever she catches me. Total opposite of previous overlords. It's kinda like having an AA sponsor. One who knows I can relapse at any time.

If I was single, work, shows, and outdoors. That would be it.

6 hours ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

Superstorm Sandy

Remember that one. I'd say the big difference there was that it hit a major population center and the focus of the government and relief organizations stayed around much longer than we usually see. Maybe NOLA post Katrina got that level of attention, but most storms get 2 weeks tops. The similarities between the two are lack of prep and experience with tropical weather. NOLA, despite their location, rarely sees storms of any consequence. NY/NJ is the same as far as hurricanes. What was likely once in a lifetime for those places is regular occurrence for most of Florida. So they got caught with their pants down. Would be the same story were we to have a freak blizzard or something. We just have zero prep for something like that.

[Dead1]

Just saw some photos of poachers' atrocities on elephants which got me really mad.  Poachers were forgiven on account of being poor (probably bribes paid). 

Here's my question - there is over 8 billion parasitical primates living on this planet causing massive devastation to the environment and in many cases to each other. 

Why not eradicate those who don't obey the laws and commit crimes?

All human life is precious is bullshit.  Human life only has whatever value society places on it.  If Mongols in the13th century figured the best use for captured humans was to build pyramids out of their decapitated heads, then that was the value of those humans.  

So my own solution - sure you get universal human rights whilst you obey the rules.  As soon as you are convicted of an act of violence or exploitation as well as political/corporate fraud you lose those rights and are culled.

Billions saved in correctional facilities, law and order (dead criminals don't commit re-offend), healthcare (eg of future victims) and it reduces our environmental footprint.

 

And arguably we need more drastic solutions to solve the environmental crisis - my own thinking is mass sterilisation of the human race and only allow so much of population to be allowed to breed - lower the population drastically in a humane fashion.

 

Consumer capitalism itself will need to be completely destroyed if the earth is to continue supporting our existence on the planet.

 

[AlSymerz]

Here's my question.

Where the fuck did I hide the presents I bought for my wife's birthday.

[JonoBlade]

7 hours ago, Dead1 said:

Just saw some photos of poachers' atrocities on elephants which got me really mad.  Poachers were forgiven on account of being poor (probably bribes paid). 

Here's my question - there is over 8 billion parasitical primates living on this planet causing massive devastation to the environment and in many cases to each other. 

Why not eradicate those who don't obey the laws and commit crimes?

All human life is precious is bullshit.  Human life only has whatever value society places on it.  If Mongols in the13th century figured the best use for captured humans was to build pyramids out of their decapitated heads, then that was the value of those humans.  

So my own solution - sure you get universal human rights whilst you obey the rules.  As soon as you are convicted of an act of violence or exploitation as well as political/corporate fraud you lose those rights and are culled.

Billions saved in correctional facilities, law and order (dead criminals don't commit re-offend), healthcare (eg of future victims) and it reduces our environmental footprint.

And arguably we need more drastic solutions to solve the environmental crisis - my own thinking is mass sterilisation of the human race and only allow so much of population to be allowed to breed - lower the population drastically in a humane fashion.

Consumer capitalism itself will need to be completely destroyed if the earth is to continue supporting our existence on the planet.

 

You and my wife would get along great. She's zero tolerance / death sentence for people that litter and those boy racers you can hear late at night or early in the morning, or anytime during the day. Or anyone that rides a loud motorcycle.

And elephant poachers.

My dad was telling me that in the 60s/70s the zero population thing was something that was openly discussed and promoted in Britain. They had it drummed into them that they should have small families. Yet this message, the one crucial thing which will save life on Earth, is never talked about. Certainly not in the namby pamby left wing press I read.

Climate crisis, blah blah blah (said in the the voice of Greta Thunberg) is front and centre in most news I come across, but the weight of human scum is absent from the narrative.

I read today about Japan's concerns about its ageing population (hardly a new thing). But all the concerns are borne from a terror that reducing population will result in a drop in economic growth, since human civilisation is built on the premise of infinite growth.

 I mean, I am hesitant to endorse your "eradicate those who don't obey the laws and commit crimes" decree because laws aren't always fair for everyone. But, at least let's have an honest discussion about it.

[GoatmasterGeneral]

9 hours ago, JonoBlade said:

My dad was telling me that in the 60s/70s the zero population thing was something that was openly discussed and promoted in Britain. They had it drummed into them that they should have small families. Yet this message, the one crucial thing which will save life on Earth, is never talked about. Certainly not in the namby pamby left wing press I read.

Climate crisis, blah blah blah (said in the the voice of Greta Thunberg) is front and center in most news I come across, but the weight of human scum is absent from the narrative.

I read today about Japan's concerns about its ageing population (hardly a new thing). But all the concerns are borne from a terror that reducing population will result in a drop in economic growth, since human civilisation is built on the premise of infinite growth.

In the 1970's the popular wisdom of the day was that if we were to keep going at the rates we had been, we would have too many people within 100 years. More people than would fit on the planet and with no way to produce enough food to feed them all. Wasn't just Britain who was promoting "zero population growth" this was essentially the climate crisis of that era, and just about all developed countries were promoting the idea of having smaller families. No more than 2 kids, replace yourselves and no more.

China notoriously instituted their one child policy in 1980, which just ended in 2016. Tens of millions of pregnancies were aborted and millions of girl babies were killed in that 36 year stretch because their people thought if they could only have one child they needed a boy to support them in their old age. Even when they eased up on the rules and agreed to allow 2 children for citizens in rural areas in an attempt to reduce the incidence of infanticide, it was too little too late.

Now their population is about to collapse because they have such a low percentage of people under 40 and especially so few girls. Any successful society needs a healthy percentage of working age adults 20 - 60 to both produce and consume to keep everything going. When there is a shortfall in the population of one specific generation, or in China's case a generation and a half (36 years) this will be catastrophic. At this point even if they encouraged all the young people by offering them incentives to make as many babies as possible, there aren't enough Chinese in the child bearing age range to successfully fix this population inbalance. There are 1.3 billion Chinese today, by 2030 there will be more retirees than workers, and by 2050 it's projected that their population will drop below 650 million (a massive 50% decrease in just 30 years) and they will suffer a complete economic and societal collapse. 

This hour long podcast was undoubtedly one of the most fascinating and informative things I've ever heard. I know some of you busy guys don't have an hour to spare but this is well worth your time if this kind of stuff interests you at all. This dude Peter Zeihan, a geopolitical analyst and author explains the whole thing much better than I can. But basically a society needs a balance of the different generations, you can't have twice as many old people as working people, it just doesn't work. Even the western countries are now having problems with too many boomers retiring and not enough younger working age people, and the youngest under 30 generation are not marrying and not having nearly enough kids. He talks about globalization, geopolitics, energy and military capabilities as well as population trends, and he explains this stuff and how it's all interconnected in a way that's very easy to understand. I've watched this a few times now as well as a bunch of his other podcast appearances over the last few months because there's just so much information to digest here. I'll give you the blurb from the Youtube video:

"The world is changing faster than ever, and a lot of the countries, dynamics, peace treaties and structures we're familiar with may be about to come to an end. Peter's job consists of him analysing data from geography, demographics, and global politics to understand economic trends and make predictions. And if his predictions are correct, the next 50 years are going to look incredibly different. Expect to learn why China will lose half of it's population by 2050, why globalisation is coming to an end even though we're more connected than ever, why population demographics are one of the most important factors in determining the future, whether automation will help or hinder us, whether food shortages are actually something to panic about and much more..."

Brace Yourself For the Collapse of Modern Society - Peter Zeihan | Modern Wisdom

 

[Dead1]

14 hours ago, JonoBlade said:

You and my wife would get along great. She's zero tolerance / death sentence for people that litter and those boy racers you can hear late at night or early in the morning, or anytime during the day. Or anyone that rides a loud motorcycle.

And elephant poachers.

I like your wife's style!

Quote

 

My dad was telling me that in the 60s/70s the zero population thing was something that was openly discussed and promoted in Britain. They had it drummed into them that they should have small families. Yet this message, the one crucial thing which will save life on Earth, is never talked about. Certainly not in the namby pamby left wing press I read.

Climate crisis, blah blah blah (said in the the voice of Greta Thunberg) is front and centre in most news I come across, but the weight of human scum is absent from the narrative.

 

Sadly the left is as pro-mass humanity as the most ardent right wing Christian zealots.

Question say mass immigration and you get called a racist.  Yet reducing immigration to west would massively reduce environmental pollution.  

Why?

Because western lifestyles are extremely pollution intensive. 

Eg:

Canada: 18.72 C02 tons per capita

Australia: 17.02 C02 tons per capita

USA  15.32 C02 tons per capita

Germany: 9.42 C02 tons per capita

EU: 7.77 C02 tons per capita

 

And third world:

Brazil: 2.24 C02 tons per capita

Indonesia: 2.02 C02 tons per capita

India: 1.89 CO2 tons per capita

Philippines: 1.02 C02 tons per capita

Etc

 

So if Ramesh and family move to USA from India, they will increase their CO2 output massively.  All of a sudden they're living in a larger dwelling with larger numbers of appliances and consumer junk, they will have gone from walking or catching public transport to driving 1 maybe 2 private cars etc etc.

The second benefit is declining western populations will further reduce C02 outputs not just in west but in third world because they won't need to produce as much crap to export to the west.

 

China's CO2 output of 7.44 C02 tons per capita starts going backwards if factories are producing less.

 

Quote

I read today about Japan's concerns about its ageing population (hardly a new thing). But all the concerns are borne from a terror that reducing population will result in a drop in economic growth, since human civilisation is built on the premise of infinite growth.

Was this the Guardian article?

 

I totally agree with you - infinite growth even if it no longer offers any benefits (eg a lot of colonial expansion as well modern economic growth which no longer benefits most people) is the ultimate goal of all human civilisations.

12 hours ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

Now their population is about to collapse because they have such a low percentage of people under 40 and especially so few girls. Any successful society needs a healthy percentage of working age adults 20 - 60 to both produce and consume to keep everything going. When there is a shortfall in the population of one specific generation, or in China's case a generation and a half (36 years) this will be catastrophic.

 

You talk about this as if it's a bad thing.

Lowering human populations is one of only two ways to preserve the planet's future viability.

The other is authoritarianism with a socialist bent - eradication of consumerism and force people to consume less on a massive scale.

Second one won't happen and in this day and age even authoritarians can't limit consumption.

So population collapse is the next best thing.

 

[Dead1]

Oh and latest news is Australia's carbon emissions are rising.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2023/aug/30/australia-quarterly-greenhouse-emissions-data-survey

 

Not surprising given we are:

 

1. Expanding fossil fuel extraction and exporting.

2. Have massive immigration scheme that pumps up demand for emission heavy goods and services (houses, transport, consumer goods).

3. Don't really invest in public transport infrastructure in a meaningful way which means congested roads (more emissions) and low public transport utilisation and greater utilisation of private vehicles, low railway utilisation for freight (railways are very poorly invested).

 

Of course the current right wing twat masquerading as a left wing PM will tell you they have a plan to stop this but it's clear they don't because that would hurt their major political donors.

 

[GoatmasterGeneral]

3 hours ago, Dead1 said:

You talk about this as if it's a bad thing.

Lowering human populations is one of only two ways to preserve the planet's future viability.

The other is authoritarianism with a socialist bent - eradication of consumerism and force people to consume less on a massive scale.

Second one won't happen and in this day and age even authoritarians can't limit consumption.

So population collapse is the next best thing.

 

No society built on uncompromising individualism, rampant consumption and mindless fanatical consumerism can go on forever. For the whole thing to keep working we'd have to produce and consume perpetually more and more and more and that's just not infinitely sustainable. It's like a house of cards that's bound to all come tumbling down at some point sooner or later, and it's looking like it'll probably be sooner. But it's also like playing musical chairs, we all know the music's gonna stop pretty soon, but no one wants to be the one who gets caught on the wrong foot 3 steps away from the chair when it does.

I know you've said you hope for societal collapse and mass starvation and to watch it all burn and for humans to turn on each other just for the pure entertainment value of it all. That's your right. Personally I hope I'll be dead and gone in another 20 years before the final collapse comes and the harsh realities of post apocalyptic dystopia are upon us. Just like I've always said if the bomb drops I want to be within the inner blast radius so I'm instantly vaporized on the spot. Because post nuclear apocalypse is one movie I have no desire to be an extra in.

[Sardonicist]

Infinite growth is possible if humans can mine asteroids, the moon and other planets. 

The physicists seem to be failing us. 

I don't believe humans have been to the moon at all, if they could have done it with decades old technology they would have gone back to exploit resources by now. 

Words and phrases don't have singular meanings. Metalheads use brutal to describe the music. So a brutal way of life is simply a person who listens to allot of brutal music.

Life is brutal for everyone, life is suffering, take away emperors, monarchies, wars, we have new problems to deal with. Marriages, raising children, watching the news and stuff is brutal. Dead1 is not fake as Dead1s financial situation with his house and wife's spending habits sounds brutal to me, he could be writing a manosphere blog. 

People are fake, we don't know what reality is or what we are, but metalheads are not faker than other humans. Personally I feel perfectly aligned with the themes of extreme metal, everyone fantasizes about the destruction of whatever they perceive threatens their survival. The inner world of a human contains unrestricted power and violence. Some people exploring this stuff does not cause a requirement for them to do it for real, this is literalist, religious thinking. If there are people who are pretenders it is the ones that pretend that they don't have any darkness in them at all. Metalheads are less fake than these types. 

It is totally legitimate for anyone to express their inner darkness in artform. That listening to Cannibal Corpse but not hammer smashing someone's face for real means that metalheads are fake is a retarded assertion in my opinion. The usual free speech argument for extreme metal and other media is that we will enjoy this stuff for entertainment and not do it for real.

In The Sopranos, Tony Soprano goes around beating the crap out of people while always talking about family values and keeping children safe. 

[RelentlessOblivion]

Except for two factors you’re overlooking: 1. The fact our moon is resource poor, a fact agreed on by most experts in the field, and 2. The cost involved to actually establish mining outfits on the market, how are you bringing the resources back, how are you getting the equipment there, how many people do you need to keep that to run the equipment, where are you going to Houston, how are you going to feet, and so on. We know where the solar system is resource rich, Earth - easy to mine, we understand how to move, resources, what equipment is required, and the Kaiber belt, which we currently do not have the technology to reach with manned spacecraft, let alone mine.

[JonoBlade]

10 hours ago, Dead1 said:

Was this the Guardian article?

Yip. I didn't read the whole thing though because it's all been said before. Maybe it will be up to the japs to find a solution to sustainable population since they are naturally at that point now anyway. They tend to be conservative and follow rules easily. Although you can't see them slashing vehicle production anytime soon and promoting a shared ownership model.

It's all about the Benjamins.

[Dead1]

13 hours ago, JonoBlade said:

Yip. I didn't read the whole thing though because it's all been said before. Maybe it will be up to the japs to find a solution to sustainable population since they are naturally at that point now anyway. They tend to be conservative and follow rules easily. Although you can't see them slashing vehicle production anytime soon and promoting a shared ownership model.

Mind you they do cram themselves into public transport.  And I would love to have their public transport infrastructure here in Tassie.  Well any decent public transport.  Hobart announced closure of over 150 bus services due to lack of drivers.  They pay drivers same as trainee drivers on mainland and then there's the threat of violence from all the bogans.

However after falling for many years, Japanese emissions have started climbing again.   

---

So why do government workers need the government to buy them top of the line $1700 mobile phones instead of cheaper ones?

Literal explanations by 2 senior nurse managers for buying expensive top of the line toys:

- Apparently only expensive phones are "reliable."

- You can hotspot expensive phones to computers (even though cheaper phones do this and all our laptops assigned to clinical staff have built in modems!)

- Apparently there are blackspots in Tasmania and only expensive phones can alleviate this (So expensive phones literally bend the laws of physics?!?)

- Only expensive phones can deal with changes to network. No one knows how cheap phones deal with network changes.

- Only expensive phones can handle data.

 

These people are fucking jokes.  I have zero respect for them.  

 

Nurses and doctors should be kept from anything involving finances.  They make stupid decisions that are are of no benefit to anyone and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

[Dead1]

Also found out an interesting thing - electric cars were invented in 1880s.  They were quite popular as city vehicles until 1920s when things like discovery of massive oil reserves and  electric ignition made gasoline cars more popular.

 

Imagine if we'd kept going down that electric vehicle pathway in 1920s to now instead of embracing gasoline/petrol fuelled ones?

[AlSymerz]

The assumption that we didn't keep going down the path is incorrect. However if it had been the primary path we'd still be in the shit because battery cars and electric cars still have a massive carbon footprint. The only difference would be the the foot print would be a different shape.

[JonoBlade]

10 hours ago, Dead1 said:

Nurses and doctors should be kept from anything involving finances.  They make stupid decisions that are are of no benefit to anyone and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Sounds like a case of fundamentally misunderstanding technology.

When I started my new job they gave me a brand new iPhone. I never turn it on except when I have to activate a security request to log into something periodically. So dumb. 

For $1700 each piece, government purchasing departments could support an ethical phone supplier like Fairphone. They have the weight to make a difference, but instead go with the big corporations which are completely unethical and presumably have the salespeople to take the right person out to dinner and service them with hookers.

4 hours ago, AlSymerz said:

The assumption that we didn't keep going down the path is incorrect. However if it had been the primary path we'd still be in the shit because battery cars and electric cars still have a massive carbon footprint. The only difference would be the the foot print would be a different shape.

You mean, like a smaller shape? Electric cars have a big carbon footprint to make, but not to operate (unless electricity comes from dirty sources) compared to a gasoline vehicle. There are other ethical considerations like where the battery parts come from, but extra research in that area over the last hundred years probably could have solved those problems easily so it wouldn't be an issue today.

However, electric cars should never have been the answer anyway, for the reason above (too many people, too many cars and roads). Car companies still want to sell the same number of cars and convince you you need a new one every year or two. The business model has not changed and is based on seeking infinite growth as it always was. The solution should be shared ownership which even a backwater like Tassie can adopt if there were the political will to do so.

Always worth coming back to proportional emissions and asking yourself how you could make a positive change in your own life with minimal impact on actual lifestyle/happiness:

It's interesting that aviation is 1.9% which is pretty insignificant. I've seen a few articles recently calling out rich people for use of private jets. I mean, rich people who use private jets are dicks that get no sympathy from me, but their contribution to the climate crisis is irrelevant. It just gets everyone else thinking that it is those rich fuckers' fault and not theirs. But make no mistake my friends, it is your fault. 

Road transport is significant. These figures do not include emissions from the manufacturing of motor vehicles or other transport equipment – this is included in ‘Energy use in Industry’.  Therefore, switching to electric cars and trucks powered from clean energy sources is a significant impact. Perhaps it even makes my "shared ownership" model unnecessary. However, having less cars/trucks with greater utilisation makes for less road wear and better use of manufacturing resources.

Energy use in buildings? Smaller buildings/better utilisation. Working from home is great for that. My firm now has a much smaller central London office which has greater utilisation via hot desking.

Live in a modest house/apartment with no more room than you need for your max 2 children. The third impregnation and later gets coat hanger justice. I live in a low rise apartment complex with 38 other units and shared grounds. 

Agriculture/land use? Plant based diet. This reduces deforestation and enables efficient land utilisation. At 49 I have physiological age of 30. However, I'm happy to keep a bow/arrows and fishing line handy for societal collapse.

It's all so easy without resorting to evil socialism. Just takes some politicians with fucking balls.