‘High likelihood of human civilisation coming to end’ by 2050

fyl2u

Striker
I couldn't think of anything worse. I've lost faith in humanity like so I'm biased.
It's because I have no faith in the majority of humanity that I think that kind of meritocracy is a better idea than representative democracy.

It's like, imagine a single parent with two young children. If their family unit were a democracy they'd be eating ice cream for every meal, replacing all the furniture with bean bags, having new toys everyday, never going to school or work, the only TV allowed would be cartoons, the house would be trashed from constant water fights and food fights and nobody doing any cleaning up, the family car would be traded in for a clown car...

It wouldn't take long before everyone was ill, the house was unlivable and eventually repossessed, it would be chaos. A parent should take charge of their kids, put their foot down and say "no, that's not a sensible decision you've made, I'm vetoing you to protect you from yourselves".

That's exactly what this country needs now. A system of government in which the more responsible, more intelligent people protect the child-brained proles from themselves to stop them from fucking the place up with their stupidity.

This post was brought to you by the Fascist Green Liberal Atheist Meritocracy Party.

Vote fyl2u.
 
Last edited:

Jasper

Striker
Climate change and robots/AI will have us fucked.

Interestingly the Syrian war is being blamed on the lack of water in rural areas forcing mass influx to cities and resulting unrest.
I’ve been saying for years and years, wars will now be fought over fresh water and not oil.

Would it not be easier and cheaper just to accept that chasing the dream of ever expanding econonic growth is what's causing the problem and find a different way to structure society.
Should have been doing this a generation ago. So far, one world leader has come out and said that’s the way forward. One.
 
Last edited:
It's because I have no faith in the majority of humanity that I think that kind of meritocracy is a better idea than representative democracy.

It's like, imagine a single parent with two young children. If their family unit were a democracy they'd be eating ice cream for every meal, replacing all the furniture with bean bags, having new toys everyday, never going to school or work, the only TV allowed would be cartoons, the house would be trashed from constant water fights and food fights and nobody doing any cleaning up, the family car would be traded in for a clown car...

It wouldn't take long before everyone was ill, the house was unlivable and eventually repossessed, it would be chaos. A parent should take charge of their kids, put their foot down and say "no, that's not a sensible decision you've made, I'm vetoing you to protect you from yourselves".

That's exactly what this country needs now. A system of government in which the more responsible, more intelligent people protect the child-brained proles from themselves to stop them from fucking the place up with their stupidity.

This post was brought to you by the Fascist Green Liberal Atheist Meritocracy Party.

Vote fyl2u.
Interesting post. My main issue is that it is the more intelligent and responsible (according to contemporary measures) that are responsible for the issues we are facing. Professionals and/or vested interested electing their own representative would result in your single parent analogy whereby the vested interested would elect whoever offered the most money for the least effort. I think something along those lines happened in schools and GP practices under the last Labour government and is really just another form of leaders listening to lobby groups.

Sorry mate no vote for me, I'm keeping my powder dry for Genghis' second coming.
 

fyl2u

Striker
Interesting post. My main issue is that it is the more intelligent and responsible (according to contemporary measures) that are responsible for the issues we are facing. Professionals and/or vested interested electing their own representative would result in your single parent analogy whereby the vested interested would elect whoever offered the most money for the least effort. I think something along those lines happened in schools and GP practices under the last Labour government and is really just another form of leaders listening to lobby groups.

Sorry mate no vote for me, I'm keeping my powder dry for Genghis' second coming.
I couldn't disagree more strongly about the "more intelligent and responsible" being responsible for the current issues.

With our current system of representative democracy, we have little more than a popularity contest between party leaders for the majority of voters. Most people don't seem to have a clue about the policies of any of the two biggest parties, let alone the rest of the pack and so the race comes down to which party can best manipulate the least intelligent 50% of the populace into voting for them.

Once in power, it's "jobs for the boys" and policies that best put money in the pockets of the party's contributors. Screw the poor.

While it could be argued that the manipulators are the intelligent folk of which you speak, I would say the manipulators are a tiny minority of the top 50% and some of them might not even be in that top 50%, they're just well-funded and/or well-supported by their friends in the media. See Boris, or Trump or Dubya in the US.

The system is pretty much designed in such a way that whoever is the better liar, the least inclined to help the needy, the most inclined to help the wealthy, the least noble, the most psychotic, will also be the most likely to be elected.

Meanwhile if you:

- geneuinely want to help the poor and make the rich business owners pay for it, you will have no funding to get your message out and no backing in the media.
- genuinely don't want to lie to the public, your message will be swamped by the lies coming from the opposition and you'll have no voice in the media to counter it.
- genuinely don't want to manipulate the stupidest 50% then you will be left behind by psychotic Machiavellian manipulators who are better able to convince the turkeys to vote for Christmas.

The more intelligent 50% of the public might be able to see through the lies of the manipulators most of the time, but that doesnt matter because their votes will be split between parties anyway; it's the bottom 50% who will make the difference in the voting booths.

Fair enough, it would be harsh to blame the stupid for being stupid, but the 50% most intelligent members of the public (as oppose to politicians or the wealthy business owners that benefit the most from those politicians) become effectively voiceless.

Even if we took the meritocracy idea at its most basic level and just took the right to vote away from the least intelligent 50% of the population, it would be an improvement on the current system. By coming up with a fair alternative where everyone gets to vote about something but your vote counts for more when it is relating to a subject in which you have more qualifications and more work experience for example, as per that other poster's example of the Health Secretary being appointed by health professionals (rather than by the PM with his associated leverage groups paying him under the table to pick the right person) it would be a huge improvement.

Vote fyl2u.

I'll probably remove your right to vote once I'm in power, but it will be for your own good.
 
Last edited:
I couldn't disagree more strongly about the "more intelligent and responsible" being responsible for the current issues.

With our current system of representative democracy, we have little more than a popularity contest between party leaders for the majority of voters. Most people don't seem to have a clue about the policies of any of the two biggest parties, let alone the rest of the pack and so the race comes down to which party can best manipulate the least intelligent 50% of the populace into voting for them.

Once in power, it's "jobs for the boys" and policies that best put money in the pockets of the party's contributors. Screw the poor.

While it could be argued that the manipulators are the intelligent folk of which you speak, I would say the manipulators are a tiny minority of the top 50% and some of them might not even be in that top 50%, they're just well-funded and/or well-supported by their friends in the media. See Boris, or Trump or Dubya in the US.

The system is pretty much designed in such a way that whoever is the better liar, the least inclined to help the needy, the most inclined to help the wealthy, the least noble, the most psychotic, will also be the most likely to be elected.

Meanwhile if you:

- geneuinely want to help the poor and make the rich business owners pay for it, you will have no funding to get your message out and no backing in the media.
- genuinely don't want to lie to the public, your message will be swamped by the lies coming from the opposition and you'll have no voice in the media to counter it.
- genuinely don't want to manipulate the stupidest 50% then you will be left behind by psychotic Machiavellian manipulators who are better able to convince the turkeys to vote for Christmas.

The more intelligent 50% of the public might be able to see through the lies of the manipulators most of the time, but that doesnt matter because their votes will be split between parties anyway; it's the bottom 50% who will make the difference in the voting booths.

Fair enough, it would be harsh to blame the stupid for being stupid, but the 50% most intelligent members of the public (as oppose to politicians or the wealthy business owners that benefit the most from those politicians) become effectively voiceless.

Even if we took the meritocracy idea at its most basic level and just took the right to vote away from the least intelligent 50% of the population, it would be an improvement on the current system. By coming up with a fair alternative where everyone gets to vote about something but your vote counts for more when it is relating to a subject in which you have more qualifications and more work experience for example, as per that other poster's example of the Health Secretary being appointed by health professionals (rather than by the PM with his associated leverage groups paying him under the table to pick the right person) it would be a huge improvement.

Vote fyl2u.

I'll probably remove your right to vote once I'm in power, but it will be for your own good.

:lol: Basically you want a return to the days of forelock tugging. Pretty much all of the problems facing the world are the result of intelligent individuals doing something they thought was right and good.
 

fyl2u

Striker
:lol: Basically you want a return to the days of forelock tugging. Pretty much all of the problems facing the world are the result of intelligent individuals doing something they thought was right and good.
I've no idea what that means, but no, what I want isn't a return to anything, it's something new and unseen in politics. People who deserve to be making decisions making decisions while those that are more prone to being manipulated have less of a say, leading to a more prosperous, fair, and Eco-friendly society where politicians are chosen because they are competent and knowledgable, not because they are manipulative populist buffoons who've been put forward by The Boys' Club.
 

Blyth_Pirate

Central Defender
I've no idea what that means, but no, what I want isn't a return to anything, it's something new and unseen in politics. People who deserve to be making decisions making decisions while those that are more prone to being manipulated have less of a say, leading to a more prosperous, fair, and Eco-friendly society where politicians are chosen because they are competent and knowledgable, not because they are manipulative populist buffoons who've been put forward by The Boys' Club.
We all want that, unfortunately arl the politicians wear their lasses knickers, and snort beak arl day.
 
I've no idea what that means, but no, what I want isn't a return to anything, it's something new and unseen in politics. People who deserve to be making decisions making decisions while those that are more prone to being manipulated have less of a say, leading to a more prosperous, fair, and Eco-friendly society where politicians are chosen because they are competent and knowledgable, not because they are manipulative populist buffoons who've been put forward by The Boys' Club.
I think your government would be more open to abuse than the one we already have - which is saying something. What is needed is the complete opposite of that which you propose. We need people prepared to put the needs of the human race before the narrow minded and short sighted dreams of experts. Disenfranchising 50%, 75% or maybe even 99% of the populace is not a good idea for creating a stable world imo.
 

fyl2u

Striker
I think your government would be more open to abuse than the one we already have - which is saying something. What is needed is the complete opposite of that which you propose. We need people prepared to put the needs of the human race before the narrow minded and short sighted dreams of experts. Disenfranchising 50%, 75% or maybe even 99% of the populace is not a good idea for creating a stable world imo.
Ah, you're not a fan of experts?

What do you do when you need medical treatment?

Or you want to buy a house and need a solicitor and things like ground reports etc.?

Or your car, TV, hifi or computer needs repairing?

How are you even on the Internet without experts creating the technologies you use to get here?

Do you not use telephones or electricity or tap water or gas or petrol?

Do you only eat food you've grown or killed and cooked yourself? How did you discover it was safe to eat those foods?

If you have kids, did you deliver them yourself?

It's a common meme nowadays for people to blame "experts" for things, but it's a myth being perpetrated by those trying to manipulate you... Climate change denyers with vested interests in the fossil fuel industry, religious zealots wanting to make people think it's ok to avoid taking vaccines, politicians manipulating the weak-minded, and Trash newspapers like the Mail and the redtops scaremongering people into buying more papers or voting a certain way even though it's against the person's best interest and only benefits rich people like the owner of the newspaper.

"Don't listen to the experts, listen to us!" (even though those people themselves are experts... in manipulation).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MSC

crombie88

Full Back
While the rich are certainly responsible for the mess by not wanting to jeopardise their positions and investments, ordinary people are just as bad for supporting the same system due to selfishness and short terminsim any political party who proposed environmental policies would never win due to tax rises and you could bet the media would come out in force to scare the masses away

The only way things could change now is if you had a political revolution with the establishment replaced with a leader akin to the first Augustus who would confiscate the wealth of the rich, eliminate all political opposition and use the money to transform Britons industry and public services through public works and nationalisation. We'd have to end our kowtowing to the oil countries and hope if it was a success other countries would follow suit as without oil the economies of the countries like the USA and Saudi Arabia would collapse
 
I’ve been saying for years and years, wars will now be fought over fresh water and not oil.
There has always been conflict over water resources. It just depends which country is upstream. Iraq threatened to invade Syria years ago when they wanted to build a huge hydro electric dam even though Turkey had done the same. The USA extracts 80% of the water from the Rio Grande and theres very little Mexico can do about it. Imagine it being the other way round.

So we'll still be spending most of our time taking selfies, then?

"And here we are just before we ate uncle Ernie's left leg".
Something ate my mother's uncle Ernie's leg but I think it was gangrene :confused:

After the drought of 1976 in this country we started to construct more reservoirs. However, as that threat appeared to disappear we began selling them off for building land. At least we own all our rivers in this country but we are always one dry winter away from a drought. We need to start constructing reservoirs again to ensure we collect enough winter rainfall to last for more than one summer.

Instead we have invested in HSE2 which actually runs over land in several places that could become flooded due to rising sea levels. How long the Thames flood barrier will remain effective is also debatable.

In Europe the problem is that the Danube runs through ten countries so conflicts over water seem inevitable especially if the Alps loose their glaciers. In India the Himalayas supply a huge population with fresh water. It seems inevitable that there is going to be mass migration on a scale we have never seen before and our human systems will be unable to cope.
The Danube runs mainly through the EU so poor Serbia will get a kicking again.
 
Last edited:

BrumBlue

Goalkeeper
Its weird to think that the planet is going to hell because of money.

That poll that suggests 20-40 billion a year or whatever it is and people were against it is crazy.

Governments should be able to print unlimited money to pay the best and brightest to fix this mess. Its just money for christ sake.

Other solutions:
Eating meat needs to be banned.
Less cars. More bikes.
People should have 1 child max. ( africans having up too 7 ffs).
Make enviroment/ climate a compulsory subject in schools.
Anyone who litters, hunts or fish recieves public stonings/lashings.

And the most important. Any country who refuses to change gets nuked. If certain countries are dooming us all they need ending.
 
Last edited:

Kent_Mackem

Striker
I couldn't disagree more strongly about the "more intelligent and responsible" being responsible for the current issues.

With our current system of representative democracy, we have little more than a popularity contest between party leaders for the majority of voters. Most people don't seem to have a clue about the policies of any of the two biggest parties, let alone the rest of the pack and so the race comes down to which party can best manipulate the least intelligent 50% of the populace into voting for them.

Once in power, it's "jobs for the boys" and policies that best put money in the pockets of the party's contributors. Screw the poor.

While it could be argued that the manipulators are the intelligent folk of which you speak, I would say the manipulators are a tiny minority of the top 50% and some of them might not even be in that top 50%, they're just well-funded and/or well-supported by their friends in the media. See Boris, or Trump or Dubya in the US.

The system is pretty much designed in such a way that whoever is the better liar, the least inclined to help the needy, the most inclined to help the wealthy, the least noble, the most psychotic, will also be the most likely to be elected.

Meanwhile if you:

- geneuinely want to help the poor and make the rich business owners pay for it, you will have no funding to get your message out and no backing in the media.
- genuinely don't want to lie to the public, your message will be swamped by the lies coming from the opposition and you'll have no voice in the media to counter it.
- genuinely don't want to manipulate the stupidest 50% then you will be left behind by psychotic Machiavellian manipulators who are better able to convince the turkeys to vote for Christmas.

The more intelligent 50% of the public might be able to see through the lies of the manipulators most of the time, but that doesnt matter because their votes will be split between parties anyway; it's the bottom 50% who will make the difference in the voting booths.

Fair enough, it would be harsh to blame the stupid for being stupid, but the 50% most intelligent members of the public (as oppose to politicians or the wealthy business owners that benefit the most from those politicians) become effectively voiceless.

Even if we took the meritocracy idea at its most basic level and just took the right to vote away from the least intelligent 50% of the population, it would be an improvement on the current system. By coming up with a fair alternative where everyone gets to vote about something but your vote counts for more when it is relating to a subject in which you have more qualifications and more work experience for example, as per that other poster's example of the Health Secretary being appointed by health professionals (rather than by the PM with his associated leverage groups paying him under the table to pick the right person) it would be a huge improvement.

Vote fyl2u.

I'll probably remove your right to vote once I'm in power, but it will be for your own good.
This, this and this!
 

Top