Avengers: Endconomics

[Aeson]

I haven't seen Avengers: End Game yet, so no worry about spoilers. Plan to see it next week.

Thanos is an idiot. If you want to reduce consumption you don't randomly kill half the universe. You kill the rich. The rich consume more than the poor, often many many times more than the poor. You can reduce the loss of life (and greatly increase the loss of horrible people) by dissolving the rich rather than random people. As a benefit, the Avengers are mostly rich folk and so the whole End Game (which I assume the Avengers thwart Thanos) wouldn't have happened. I lost all respect for Thanos. Most likely he's a corporate shill trying to undermine the environmental movement by making it look like an idiotic death panel. It's almost enough to make me believe that Marvel may just be in it for the billions of box office dollars and not really promoting environmental policies at all!

Also the Avengers are idiots. Once they learned Thanos wanted to wish half of the beings in the universe out of existence, they should have just created a huge number of AIs (trivial for Iron Man) in virtual worlds ... so many that statistically speaking, no other group of living beings would have had much risk to have anyone disolvved. Make the AI so they all dream of being freed from their existence by an idiot environmentalist death panel and it's a win/win for everyone.

[BeBMan]

I haven't seen Avengers: End Game yet, so no worry about spoilers. Plan to see it next week.

Also the Avengers are idiots. Once they learned Thanos wanted to wish half of the beings in the universe out of existence (...).

The Avengers/the pres/whatever authorities could have simply avoided any loss of life by pre-emptively assigning all humans/other life forms to the opposite half that was always meant to survive

[Lorizael]

He's not called the Mad Titan for nothin', folks.

[pchang]

Based on the previous movie, only intelligent life got wiped out. We did not see half the trees or grass disappear.

[seIf biased]

I haven't seen Avengers: End Game yet, so no worry about spoilers. Plan to see it next week.

Thanos is an idiot. If you want to reduce consumption you don't randomly kill half the universe. You kill the rich. The rich consume more than the poor, often many many times more than the poor. You can reduce the loss of life (and greatly increase the loss of horrible people) by dissolving the rich rather than random people. As a benefit, the Avengers are mostly rich folk and so the whole End Game (which I assume the Avengers thwart Thanos) wouldn't have happened. I lost all respect for Thanos. Most likely he's a corporate shill trying to undermine the environmental movement by making it look like an idiotic death panel. It's almost enough to make me believe that Marvel may just be in it for the billions of box office dollars and not really promoting environmental policies at all!

Also the Avengers are idiots. Once they learned Thanos wanted to wish half of the beings in the universe out of existence, they should have just created a huge number of AIs (trivial for Iron Man) in virtual worlds ... so many that statistically speaking, no other group of living beings would have had much risk to have anyone disolvved. Make the AI so they all dream of being freed from their existence by an idiot environmentalist death panel and it's a win/win for everyone.

Interesting review.
Escapist fantasy? or cap com debate thread

[seIf biased]

Food.
Clothing.
Fuel.
other goods:
'consumes more'
Do you have Jeff Bezos' and Bill Gates' personal calorie counter or something?
Do they at scale reach the consumption relevant even 'per person' to rival an 8 billion person problem?
Are there millions of 'rich' just hyperconsuming?

https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/02/27/were-all-the-1-percent/

$34,000 per year makes rich.
Eat the rich!
"
That's at least one extra immune system's worth of cycle for your calories!"
-canaballetist's guidebook

[seIf biased]

'Due to the disparity of wealth in the USA and the existence of poverty
'western Europe, et al, with their, 'more friendly middle class policies'
'are a more efficient consumption unit,
'more rich, on average
'and worse in the eyes of Malthusiasts

TOSS | Mumbai Indians skipper Rohit Sharma wins the toss, decides to bat against Sunrisers Hyderabad

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/ipl/live-blog/live-ipl-2019-mumbai-indians-vs-sunrisers-hyderabad-live-score-match51-mumbai/liveblog/69147601.cms?utm_source=browser_notification&utm_medium=chrome&utm_campaign=TOI_browsernotification

good morning ante poders and Good night.

[seIf biased]

Malthus, a devout Christian, believed that "self-control" (abstinence) was preferable to artificial birth control. In some editions of his essay, Malthus did allow that abstinence was unlikely to be effective on a wide scale, thus advocating the use of artificial means of birth control as a solution to population "pressure".^[5] Modern "neo-Malthusians" are generally more concerned than Malthus with environmental degradation and catastrophic famine than with poverty.

Malthusianism has attracted criticism from a diverse range of differing schools of thought, including Marxists^[6] and socialists,^[7]libertarians and free market enthusiasts,^[8]social conservatives,^[9]feminists^[10] and human rights advocates, characterising it as excessively pessimistic, misanthropic or inhuman.^{[11][12][3][13]} Many critics believe Malthusianism has been discredited since the publication of Principle of Population, often citing advances in agricultural techniques and modern reductions in human fertility.^[

'self control is sucky
'sort your recycling
'your consumption, bleh, the rich!
'that's not me!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism

[seIf biased]

Opinion It's the Deadliest Year Ever to Be Jewish in America: What Trump Must Do to End the Terror

When white supremacists attacked synagogues and black churches, Eisenhower fought back. Trump must be more like Ike
Stuart Wexler May 02, 2019 11:32 AM

Thanks Stuart!.

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-deadliest-year-ever-to-be-jewish-in-america-what-trump-must-do-to-end-the-terror-1.7188156?utm_source=Push_Notification&utm_medium=web_push&utm_campaign=General

[seIf biased]

By Linda Carroll and Shamard Charles, M.D.
Americans are having fewer and fewer babies, a new government report finds. In fact, we now aren’t making enough babies to replace ourselves.

For the population to reproduce itself at current numbers, the “total fertility rate” needs to be 2,100 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age over their lifetime, researchers for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in their report, released early Thursday. But the latest data show a current rate of just 1,765.5 per 1,000, or 16 percent below the number needed to keep the population stable without additions through immigration.




The total fertility rate has been declining steadily for seven years, but the numbers for 2017 represent the biggest drop in recent history. The rate for 2016 was 1,820.5; for 2015, 1,843.5; and for 2014, 1,862.5.
[...]cont.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/americans-aren-t-making-enough-babies-replace-ourselves-n956931

[seIf biased]

• Japan's population is getting older.
• While aging populations are presenting economic difficulties in much of the developed world, the problem in Japan is dire: The country's birth rate last year dropped to its lowest level since statistics were kept in 1899.
• There are now more adult diapers sold than baby diapers in Japanese supermarkets.

---

Japan's population is shrinking fast.
The number of babies born in the country last year dropped to 946,060, and it's the second year when new births remained below 1 million, Japan's government said. It's the lowest level since the country began counting in 1899.
At the same time, the number of deaths in the country — owing to the increasingly aging population— hit a postwar high of 1.3 million. That means Japan's population fell by a whopping 394,373 people in 2017.
In a demographic time bomb, fertility rates fall at the same time that longevity increases.
An aging population like Japan's poses numerous problems. The government will have to spend more on healthcare, and that, coupled with a shrinking workforce and tax base, is a recipe for economic stagnation. It also means, among other things, that there will not be enough young people to care for the elderly.
[...]

https://www.businessinsider.com/japa...me-bomb-2018-6

'older people use more and produce less'
'being older is worse than being 'richer''
'being old and rich is just a 'statistic''

[seIf biased]

If I read Aeson correctly, the following thesis statement should be true:
'$34,000 is too rich
'increased health care, or services of/to any kind
'in/to that particular income/wealth group(depending on whitch)
'threatens(ed)/ing the survival of the human race'''/species//''
'and cause(s)(d) extinction
'at far greater rates""

There's always been super rich"
The middle class killed the planet.

[seIf biased]

Here's one more as I sip coffee, waked, without anything baked in my belly:
'fair trade'
'only consent makes a trade fair

5/2 2/5

Adam Foote
MarvellWynn Day

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Foote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvell_Wynne_(baseball)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvell_Wynne_(soccer)

[seIf biased]

Neadto3-d

Marvel must work a miracle with Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow



The plot of Avengers: Endgame presents a challenge, but the studio should show this underused superhero some love – even if it means cheating
WARNING: contains spoilers!

https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...matic-universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Primeau

KEITH PRIMEAU IS A MEATBALL :*
:like:

'it's okay to root for the lightning'-Aeson

https://www.lightningmaps.org/?lang=en#m=oss;t=3;s=0;o=0;b=;ts=0;y=40.714;x=-91.7468;z=6;d=2;dl=2;dc=0;

[Aeson]

I am not Thanos. But I can critique Thanos’ method to achieving Thanos’ stated mission. He sucks donkey balls at it.

My own view is that Earth can easily support at least the current population and near term estimated peak population at roughly an American middle class lifestyle. It requires some changes in consumption and agriculture. Basically eating perennial/tree crops instead of annuals and animals solves most of the worlds problems.

The only necessary risk for overpopulation is if fertility increases or lifespans do. Of course doing things stupidly can cause problems at any population greater than 0.

The observable universe is seemingly about as far from overpopulated as it can get.