Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RandomNumbers

(19,037 posts)
45. "WEF and "globohomo" ???
Sun May 11, 2025, 10:57 AM
May 2025

Not sure what you mean.

As for any conspiracy, well I fucking doubt it. If so, they aren't being very effective at it.

Do you really think allowing women to control their reproduction (the most effective step to active, HUMANE population reduction) is "unethical unacceptable actions" ??


Or perhaps my point was too subtle, that unless humans actively implement humane policies to slow and reverse population growth (which we have been doing in some places; but in the US those policies are actively being reverted - see Roe v Wade for exhibit 1) - then there will be some brutally active reduction - which may or many not be caused by humans (but I'd say the current world politics suggest it will be driven by humans, and quite brutal for those who cannot protect themselves).

https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/09/08/how-birth-control-girls-education-can-slow-population-growth/

Like I said, EXTREMELY inconvenient for almost everyone, but for different reasons.

Not sure why this is contested on a liberal discussion board. It's pretty basic that the bad consequences of what each of us do is multiplied by the number of people doing it. I don't think I've met anyone who has a zero or less carbon footprint + biodiversity impact, and I can bet that anyone claiming that is either misinformed or lying.

It's fine for humans to do things that impact the planetary ecosystem - of course they will, and we have a right to exist - the question is how much of that can the planetary ecosystem absorb, before it is changed in such a way that it can no longer support human population.


https://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/catastrophic-73-decline-in-the-average-size-of-global-wildlife-populations-in-just-50-years-reveals-a-system-in-peril

Washington, DC (October 9, 2024) -There has been a catastrophic 73% decline in the average size of monitored wildlife populations* in just 50 years (1970-2020), according to World Wildlife Fund‘s (WWF) Living Planet Report 2024. The report warns that parts of our planet are approaching dangerous tipping points driven by the combination of nature loss and climate change which pose grave threats to humanity.

The Living Planet Index, provided by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), tracks almost 35,000 vertebrate populations of 5,495 species from 1970-2020. The steepest decline is in freshwater populations (85%), followed by terrestrial (69%) and then marine (56%).

Habitat loss and degradation and overharvesting, driven primarily by our global food system are the dominant threats to wildlife populations around the world, followed by invasive species, disease and climate change.

Significant declines in wildlife populations negatively impact the health and resilience of our environment and push nature closer to disastrous tipping points– critical thresholds resulting in substantial and potentially irreversible change. Regional tipping points, such as the decimation of North American pine forests, the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, and the mass die-off of coral reefs, have the potential to create shockwaves far beyond the immediate region, impacting food security, livelihoods, and economies.**



https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6871202/

Ann Ib Postgrad Med. 2019 Jun;17(1):1–3.
LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY: THE BURGEONING THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH

The pressure from agriculture requirement for crop & animal husbandry has made humanity to convert wetlands, forest, and grassland into farmlands and grazing land, among others. Furthermore, the increasing world human population, which has doubled between 1970 and now to more than 7 billion is the other edge of the sword aggravating the global loss of biodiversity. On the other side are factors are exploitation of mineral resources, pollution, the introduction of exotic species & genetically modified organisms, climate changes and alteration and loss habitats which are all connected with human efforts to care for the growing habitats of the Earth.

Every year, at least a species goes into extinction while many species of plants and animals face extinction across the world according to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Report (2019). 4

Sadly, most of the global loss of biodiversity occurs in the Developing World, Nigeria inclusive.5 Furthermore, the critical 25 hotspots of the global loss of biodiversity include areas spanning the rain forest belt of southern Nigeria although the enormous swathe of territory includes the Tropical Andes in South America and Indo-Burma areas in South East Asia. These hotspots are home to a considerable proportion of Earth's species of plants and animals. The Amazon in the Tropical Andes alone harbours 50,000 species or one-sixth of the Earth's total.6 Generally, known species are going extinct, 1000 times more than newly discovered ones.7

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

What happens when AI starts using itself as its source material? Ocelot II May 2025 #1
Yes, indeed. MineralMan May 2025 #5
What could happen is what's called "model collapse" - which there have been warnings about for years: highplainsdem May 2025 #17
Over multiple iterations the errors get larger and the facts become overwhelmed. erronis May 2025 #24
Wikipedia still is suspect. Nothing has really changed over the years. n/t valleyrogue May 2025 #2
It's been years since I found a suspect source. . . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #10
Wikipedia BeerBarrelPolka May 2025 #13
Point something out. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #14
How about this? TheRickles May 2025 #22
Okay you may have something there, but it also points out the revision process restores a lot of it Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #27
I still occasionally find circular Wikipedia source citations muriel_volestrangler May 2025 #37
Can happen. Complex subject matter is difficult to master and difficult to untangle. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #42
The professional organization of practitioners of this therapy gave up trying to influence Wikipedia. TheRickles May 2025 #39
Such as? BeerBarrelPolka May 2025 #63
Every spoken or written word is suspect. That's human nature. hunter May 2025 #19
That's my position also. The "Talk" and revision pages are valuable in their own right. erronis May 2025 #25
It is still "suspect." It's just that, like you say, you can generally check their sources...nt Wounded Bear May 2025 #3
I do occasionally. It's been years since I found a suspect source. . . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #11
Ai reformats work done by others samsingh May 2025 #4
One day per week Turbineguy May 2025 #6
IMO, AI is an amazing innovation anciano May 2025 #7
Current AI is Generative AI, not true AI. It doesn't reason, it makes stuff that looks reasonable. Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #8
I call it fAI for fakeAI. Calling it AI is such a joke. CrispyQ May 2025 #9
You are correct, of course. MineralMan May 2025 #12
Define sentience Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #16
This is similar to what has been done to bridge the "Uncanny Valley" in visuals. erronis May 2025 #28
Well, I consider artificial intelligence to be equivalent to MineralMan May 2025 #31
Okay, a bit of a start to definition Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #36
OK. Definitions can be difficult when the subject is abstract. MineralMan May 2025 #48
Good story and kudos to you. But you draw the wrong lesson and there are counters Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #51
Oh, I'm not saying that what they're calling AI will not be a useful tool. MineralMan May 2025 #52
I think you may have deep seated mystical beliefs preventing you from recognizing all its forms Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #56
Not mystical at all. MineralMan May 2025 #61
I'm open to the possibility that we've created an environment where AI could come about, CrispyQ May 2025 #21
I agree. What's this? Highlight Look Up Wikipedia underpants May 2025 #15
"starting point to other references" is exactly how it should be used RandomNumbers May 2025 #30
Steve Pruitt has a lot of time on his hands. underpants May 2025 #18
"AI" is not just another Silicon Valley gold rush Ponzi-oid investment bubble... paulkienitz May 2025 #20
If they have so much confidence in it, the first task we should assign AI is climate change. CrispyQ May 2025 #23
The #1 fix to climate change* is population reduction RandomNumbers May 2025 #34
That's the #1 overly simplistic fix, not the #1 realistic fix Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #38
"WEF and "globohomo" ??? RandomNumbers May 2025 #45
WEF is World Economic Foundation. "Globohomo" is the nutty concept that globalists and homosexuals are aligned Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #53
Ah, thank you. As usual, a "right wing talking point" is idiotic RandomNumbers May 2025 #58
Post removed Post removed May 2025 #55
Your exact words: RandomNumbers May 2025 #60
Contraceptive and abortion rights were never "active reduction". Exercising them is active prevention, not reduction Bernardo de La Paz May 2025 #64
Oh yes, the 8 billion pound elephant in the room. CrispyQ May 2025 #44
Thank you. I blame lack of science education RandomNumbers May 2025 #49
"The thing is, we might still be able to turn things around relatively humanely..." CrispyQ May 2025 #65
Totally agree. RandomNumbers May 2025 #66
The potential is enormous, so is the danger. Joinfortmill May 2025 #26
I was recently going through the history of the moniss May 2025 #29
First off, AI is a tool... Much like a calculator JCMach1 May 2025 #32
Then, it is misnamed. MineralMan May 2025 #33
thanks for that explanation of your use of these tools. Real life applications are helpful. erronis May 2025 #35
The free to use baked in stuff is largely trash JCMach1 May 2025 #40
Ed Zitron and Cory Doctorow will agree. erronis May 2025 #46
In both your examples you are manipulating language... hunter May 2025 #50
It's problematic when legit news media cites AI written content as a source IronLionZion May 2025 #41
Wikipedia can be a useful starting point, but only that. And yes, generative AI slop is a growing problem there. Eugene May 2025 #43
AI (GPT) IS A TOOL. Layzeebeaver May 2025 #47
I agree The Bot's make up word salads. Historic NY May 2025 #54
Yes, sometimes they do. MineralMan May 2025 #57
I perfer Language Tool Historic NY May 2025 #59
Yes, AI is a tool, and probably a useful one. MineralMan May 2025 #62
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Remember When Wikipedia W...»Reply #45