UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
JackHK
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 7:47 pm UTC
Location: magic.catch.wolves

UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby JackHK » Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:42 pm UTC

Here's the link to the Global goals launch video.

It's ambitious, but I hope this will get something good done, even if we don't make all the goal in the time period specified.

Image

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10298
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:00 pm UTC

Mission accomplished for #14. Job well done, everyone.

speising
Posts: 2182
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby speising » Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:21 pm UTC

I like it how absolutely they define points osne and two, and then there's ten "reduced" inequalities.

Chen
Posts: 5396
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Chen » Fri Sep 25, 2015 6:00 pm UTC

Only way I can really see an absolute version of 10, would be some sort of mass communism. How else could you completely eliminate inequality?

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Lazar » Fri Sep 25, 2015 6:02 pm UTC

Well it doesn't say to eliminate inequality, just to reduce it – which is a good and laudable goal, since excessive wealth inequality is correlated with many social ills.
Exit the vampires' castle.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby leady » Fri Sep 25, 2015 6:08 pm UTC

Ooh lets play predictions!

1. fail
2. fail
3. fail
4. fail
5. fail
6. partial success
7. utter fail
8. fail
9. success
10. utter utter fail
11. success by definition
12. meaningless
13. fail or success (no action, no major issues)
14. success by definition
15. success by definition
16. hahahaaha - no chance in a million years
17. hahahahah - no chance in a million years

Mutex
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Mutex » Fri Sep 25, 2015 6:10 pm UTC

Does #2 mean that if you're in a meeting, and get a bit peckish, you can just leave?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10298
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 25, 2015 6:20 pm UTC

These are not actually goals, these are just pictures and words.

Chen
Posts: 5396
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Chen » Fri Sep 25, 2015 6:27 pm UTC

I was wondering how you were saying they could fail when they were so broad, but then I noticed the targets that are lower on the page for each of these. That does seem exceedingly unlikely for many of the goals. I mean look at how far reaching the first 2 from the "Zero Hunger" are:

By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round

By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons


Or the Quality Education one:

By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and Goal-4 effective learning outcomes


So 0% high school drop out rate by 2030...worldwide. Plus, you know, ensuring every child on the planet actually goes to elementary and high school to begin with. I get you want to set the bar high, but you also need to at least apply SOME realism to your goals.

The first point of the inequality one also seems insane.
By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40 per cent of the population at a rate higher than the national average


Seems like this one would have a fairly large problem just mathematically, let alone putting into practice. Wouldn't the bottom 40% be constantly shifting around, as you took money from the top 60% to somehow ensure the bottom 40% was growing faster than the national average?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5729
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Thesh » Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:08 pm UTC

The mathematics aren't the problem, the politics are. Let's say in your country, the average after-tax household income for each quintile was like so:

1: $5,000
2: $10,000
3: $20,000
4: $40,000
5: $80,000

Now, to combat this, you institute a basic income that pays $5000 to each household. To pay for this, you have tax increase which ends up collecting 16.1% of everyone's remaing income. The average income in each group now looks like this:

$9,194
$13,387
$21,774
$38,548
$72,096

No matter how you look at it, income inequality has been significantly reduced. Since everyone loses the same share of income after tax, that doesn't move anyone to a different bracket, and then since everyone gets the same basic income, that doesn't shift anyone to a different bracket either.
Behold your only true messiah. An entity of which you're a part.
A vast and cold indifferent being. A grey clad mass without a heart.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10298
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:18 pm UTC

In the short term, perhaps. But in the long term, if you always have the most income growth in the bottom 40%, you do run into an issue.

Granted, they also are aiming for this, worldwide by 2030, so it's hardly the only concern...but still, it's laughable for multiple reasons. You'd think you'd aim for a given GINI index or something. Yknow, some actual concrete objective for the exact thing you claim to fix...

Ah, these are are terrible by that standard.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3837
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Dauric » Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:43 pm UTC

Back when I was a kid (back in the 80's) I had a big thick book called something like "The Kid's Whole Future Catalog" that had all these fantastic future (read: the year 2000) innovations that were going to solve all the ills of the world, clean air and water plentiful food, an end to war, miracle medicines that stopped aging etc., etc., etc... And of course being a catalog you could buy science kits and materials to bring the future home today!

This strikes me as a similar thing in a lot of ways. Another 20 years of effort and innovation and everything ever will be fixed.

... Actually I think these Global Goals are somewhat more pessimistic. That 1980's catalog kind of assumed that this stuff was inevitable. This Global Goals thing has a tinge of "C'mon guys we can do this if we all just pull together! Everybody at one "Yaaaay Humans!... Anybody? C'mon guys...."

Kinda wish I could find that catalog again, it would be a nice source of 'retro-future' art.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby commodorejohn » Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:56 pm UTC

"Also, I'd like a pony."
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5729
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Thesh » Fri Sep 25, 2015 9:00 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:In the short term, perhaps. But in the long term, if you always have the most income growth in the bottom 40%, you do run into an issue.


Well, assuming infinite inequality reduction is just being pedantic. However, if you want to be pedantic, you can uses a function like arctan(x)/(pi/2) to calculate the basic income tax rate and then divide the revenues evenly throughout the population. Inequality can be reduced every year, but no one will ever be moved out of an income bracket from the basic income and tax, and you will never have complete inequality. Granted, at some point the difference between the bottom 1% and the top 1% is a fraction of a cent.
Behold your only true messiah. An entity of which you're a part.
A vast and cold indifferent being. A grey clad mass without a heart.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3837
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Dauric » Fri Sep 25, 2015 9:24 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:"Also, I'd like a pony."

As long as it's a Robo-Pony with Laser Eyes and nuclear jet engines*.

*Yes, "Engines" plural.

Edit: ... And I see no reason why it should be limited to two Laser Eyes.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10298
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 25, 2015 10:47 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:In the short term, perhaps. But in the long term, if you always have the most income growth in the bottom 40%, you do run into an issue.


Well, assuming infinite inequality reduction is just being pedantic. However, if you want to be pedantic, you can uses a function like arctan(x)/(pi/2) to calculate the basic income tax rate and then divide the revenues evenly throughout the population. Inequality can be reduced every year, but no one will ever be moved out of an income bracket from the basic income and tax, and you will never have complete inequality. Granted, at some point the difference between the bottom 1% and the top 1% is a fraction of a cent.


Infinite is unnecessary. Real life economies are not quite so finely controllable as all that. You'll run into practical problems much faster than that.

In short, it does not seem like a very sensible goal, much like the others. Many of them are fine general things to pursue, but the goals themselves seem to be extremely poorly thought out.

Let's peruse them.
1. No poverty whatsoever. In 15 years. This is the definition of an unacheivable goal. Reducing poverty is a fine thing to work on, but the goal itself is utter bullshit. It's a political talking point, not a reasonable objective.
2. No hunger whatsoever, in the same time frame. Basically, the same as #1. I have no objection to the motivation, but impossible bullshit like this are why people see the UN as ineffective. They're making targets they cannot possibly hit. Make a reasonable objective, instead, and a plan to get there. That's worth more than all the BS imaginable.
3. Good Health and Well Being. I started reading, and got as far as "end the threat posed by communicable diseases" before breaking out into laughter. Look, there are some actual targets in here, but some things are just not reasonable within 15 years. It's magical thinking, of the same sort that will promise fusion power and flying cars.
4. Education. Yes, you are going to provide education to literally everyone. And also solve safety problems for everyone. And it's going to be perfectly free and equitable. Look, I'd be utterly amazed if you could pull that off in say, Texas, let alone worldwide.
5. Gender Equality. End discrimination and violence everywhere. Ahahahahaha. The only way this is likely within fifteen years is if you literally nuke the world. Technically, that might solve other options above too.
6. Water. Universal and equitable access to water for all. Again, just getting California to this level would be a massive acheivement. We've been working on that for how long now?
7. Energy. Aright. There's a lot fewer goals here, and some of them are actually gimmies. Enhance international cooperation? Okay, sure, whatever. That's totally doable, but also subjective as shit. The ensuring universal access to affordable, reliable energy, though...do they have some definition of universal that's way, way less than 100% or something? Because that's the only way this makes sense. That or nuking the planet.
8. Decent work and Economic growth. Sustained 7% growth, you say? Weren't folks skeptical about 4%? Oh, full employment. Absolutely full employment. That's adorable. More goodness, less badness! Hurray!
9. Industry/Innovation. Well, if there's one thing I'm certain of, it's that corporations will continue spreading their reach. It's kind of what they do. I don't think the UN can really claim credit for that, though. It'd surely happen regardless. As for the "free internet for everyone by 2020", ahahahaha.
10. Reduced Inequality. Most of these are entirely non-numeric things. Increase opportunity. Improve regulation. Yknow, the shit literally every politician will claim to be doing, regardless of if he or she gives two shits about inequality. This is mostly just bullshit due to fuzzy metrics.
11. Sustainable cities/communities. Weee, safe, cheap housing and transportation for literally everyone. No need to keep reading here, it's already unpossible.
12. Responsible Production/Consumption. I *suspect* this goal conflicts slightly with the other goals, to some degree. Look, industry works by catering to/encouraging good little consumers. But hey, let's read it. Oh look, they plan to fix ALL chemical and waste management issues. By 2020. Obviously, a full fifteen years was FAR too much time to spend on such an easy goal. This site is comedy.
13. Climate Action. That's a broad title. The only actual metric in here is how much money they believe they should get. I do not doubt their committment to getting more money, so hey, maybe they can count this a win.
14. Life under water. Sweet jesus, they managed to get "small scale artisinal" into a requirement. I do not think these folks understand the developing world. Or even just the world. Most of these are acheivable only in that they are uselessly vague. I guess if use enough buzzwords, the environment will fix itself.
15. Life on land. Wow, we just had to get as uselessly vague as possible, right? No worries, we're going to fix all extinction and biodiversity issues by 2020. Another easy one. Good thing everything is conveniently acheivable in exactly 5 or 15 years. Round numbers are a sure sign of comprehensive planning! Also, points of for no mention of ponies.
16. Peace and Justice. They're going to reduce death rates EVERYWHERE, yo. And end all violence against kids. All of it. Corruption and bribery, though, we have to be more reasonable about. Let's keep some of that around. We can't get TOO insane with these goals now!
17. Partnerships. The longest section, of course. Bits about getting money? Very important. What the money is for? Not important. Also, words like "operationalize" make me want to stab the closest manager I can find.

I love that "take action" for all of these goals leads to exactly the same page, which is focused on sending emails and shit. Not, say, charities tailored to each goal or something that would actually *do* anything. No, you save the world by liking them on facebook. Good luck with that.

Greyhind
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:18 pm UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Greyhind » Sat Sep 26, 2015 4:24 pm UTC

The first goal is actually reduce 'extreme poverty', as in living with noless than a set figure. I believe this is near $1 (us) per day. It's possible in that since the 70s both as a percentage and after accounting for population growth such poverty has been falling even in the poorest countries.

We're talking moving from homes with woven grass roofs to tin in villages where trade doesn't generate wealth because there is no trade because even subsitance farmers can only feed themselves properly for only part of the year.

The idea is that once a foreign aid package builds an irrigation system or imports golden rice or otherwise addresses a micro local problem the locals will be able to feed themselves and thus trade and therefore fuel economic growth. Increased living standards are harnessed to increase economic growth as opposed to increasing economic growth and in order to increasing living standards.

Sorry if that was a bit wordy, I saw television program about it earlier today. Www.gapminder.org for more info.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9622
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby addams » Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:20 am UTC

Dauric wrote:
... Actually I think these Global Goals are somewhat more pessimistic.
That 1980's catalog kind of assumed that this stuff was inevitable.
This Global Goals thing has a tinge of

"C'mon guys we can do this if we all just pull together! Everybody at one "Yaaaay Humans!... Anybody? C'mon guys...."

Yes. I'm with you!
I'll pull with you!

I'll cheer your every success.
I'll mourn every fail and near miss.

Yes. I'm with you!
I'll pull with you!

Let the pessimists criticize your efforts from the luxury of their anonymous internet bunker.
Everyone else can be busy and happy on the journey to a better tomorrow for the whole world.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby commodorejohn » Sun Sep 27, 2015 7:15 am UTC

I criticize their "efforts" in my un-anonymous daily life, too...
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9622
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby addams » Sun Sep 27, 2015 9:25 am UTC

Lovely.
When we encounter that one Who that criticizes the whole hearted efforts of the rest of us....
When we encounter that one Who who will not try (not even a little bit) we'll know it is you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0xQsleqNyQ
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby curtis95112 » Sun Sep 27, 2015 11:10 am UTC

addams wrote:Lovely.
When we encounter that one Who that criticizes the whole hearted efforts of the rest of us....
When we encounter that one Who who will not try (not even a little bit) we'll know it is you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0xQsleqNyQ


Needlessly passive aggressive, wouldn't you say?
Especially so if you consider that commodorejohn is one of the people paying for the UN to do this stuff.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

dg61
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby dg61 » Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:15 pm UTC

Greyhind wrote:The first goal is actually reduce 'extreme poverty', as in living with noless than a set figure. I believe this is near $1 (us) per day. It's possible in that since the 70s both as a percentage and after accounting for population growth such poverty has been falling even in the poorest countries.

We're talking moving from homes with woven grass roofs to tin in villages where trade doesn't generate wealth because there is no trade because even subsitance farmers can only feed themselves properly for only part of the year.

The idea is that once a foreign aid package builds an irrigation system or imports golden rice or otherwise addresses a micro local problem the locals will be able to feed themselves and thus trade and therefore fuel economic growth. Increased living standards are harnessed to increase economic growth as opposed to increasing economic growth and in order to increasing living standards.

Sorry if that was a bit wordy, I saw television program about it earlier today. http://Www.gapminder.org for more info.


I think hunger is the same way; it's more "ensure that everyone or very nearly so can obtain enough basically nutritive food that they can fulfill their basic caloric and nutritional needs on a day-to-day basis". Which is certainly more doable now thanks to things like improved high-yield crops and access to pesticides than it used to be, especially if we improve the distribution of food. Very ambitious, but certainly doable in principle.

cphite
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby cphite » Mon Sep 28, 2015 3:34 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:These are not actually goals, these are just pictures and words.


You didn't look closely enough. The last square clearly indicates that the 18th goal is to actually write the goals.

User avatar
Habz
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:55 am UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Habz » Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:19 am UTC

Personally, I think over-population is the real problem that needs addressing. Sorting that out would make most of the aforementioned ones go poof.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 589
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby SDK » Wed Sep 30, 2015 1:10 pm UTC

Habz wrote:Personally, I think over-population is the real problem that needs addressing. Sorting that out would make most of the aforementioned ones go poof.

Sorting these goals out is actually the best way to do that, especially those pertaining to the empowering women and education goals. Low birth rates across the developed world shows that bringing people out of poverty is a great way to reduce the number of new humans born, without needing strict laws restricting reproduction.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10298
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 30, 2015 2:02 pm UTC

Habz wrote:Personally, I think over-population is the real problem that needs addressing. Sorting that out would make most of the aforementioned ones go poof.


We have a time tested traditional solution for that, and it's called war. I understand they're against it.

User avatar
Habz
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:55 am UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Habz » Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:21 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:We have a time tested traditional solution for that, and it's called war. I understand they're against it.


I'm sure you know that the particular solution is being used a lot in several places at this very moment. I'm not too fond of the idea of warring spreading any further, which I think is pretty much inevitable considering the current growth rate of human population.

SDK wrote:Sorting these goals out is actually the best way to do that, especially those pertaining to the empowering women and education goals. Low birth rates across the developed world shows that bringing people out of poverty is a great way to reduce the number of new humans born, without needing strict laws restricting reproduction.


True, they'll probably do the trick eventually. But how many billions of people will be born in the meantime? And how many killed?

Impossible problem in the first place of course. I don't really see a way of effectively enforcing such laws in many of the countries that needed them. But maybe some amount of shit-hitting-the-fan-in-the-future could be reduced by at least generally acknowledging the problem.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10298
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:06 pm UTC

Habz wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:We have a time tested traditional solution for that, and it's called war. I understand they're against it.


I'm sure you know that the particular solution is being used a lot in several places at this very moment. I'm not too fond of the idea of warring spreading any further, which I think is pretty much inevitable considering the current growth rate of human population.


*shrug* Overpopulation is a common natural effect. It leads to either increased predation as the predator species increase in number after the prey do...or resource overconsumption, and population collapse.

Everyone focuses on the latter, assuming that people have no predators, and look at the human population as that of a prey species in the absense of a predator, but that's not quite right. We're at the top of the food chain, and we're territorial. An overpopulation of animals like that invariably causes conflict.

That said, yeah, population is eventually expected to level off thanks to increasing education. Realistically, you wanna get there, while also increasing production fast enough to keep up. Once the leveling out happens, you have some actual breathing room.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:27 pm UTC

Uh... Fewer people have been dying in war than ever before. Even with Iraq and Syria. You just live in a world with Internet; 200 years ago a war in China could (and did) kill 800000 in a single battle and you'd never know.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10298
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:29 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Uh... Fewer people have been dying in war than ever before. Even with Iraq and Syria. You just live in a world with Internet; 200 years ago a war in China could (and did) kill 800000 in a single battle and you'd never know.


Yes. And you'll note that fewer people are dying of starvation than ever before as well.

And of course, locations where wars ARE being fought obviously correlate with locations that have resource shortages.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby morriswalters » Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:46 pm UTC

At the end of WW2 the numbers were between 60 and 80 million dead due to all causes during the war. The two Japanese cities destroyed by the Atom bombs had near 300,000 killed, mostly non combatants. No battle, about 10 seconds. Military causalities alone were approximately 20 million. Seems pretty deadly to me.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10298
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:51 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:At the end of WW2 the numbers were between 60 and 80 million dead due to all causes during the war. The two Japanese cities destroyed by the Atom bombs had near 300,000 killed, mostly non combatants. No battle, about 10 seconds. Military causalities alone were approximately 20 million. Seems pretty deadly to me.


Oh, sure, WW2 was indeed pretty deadly. Nobody is contesting that. It was also 60 years ago, and we've had something of a significant drop in war since then.

Of course, nothing is magically forever, so...yeah, we could go back to the bad old days, if the right circumstances happen. But that, of course, isn't bound to happen either. Two super powers tussling over turf is messy, but cold wars are less so. And a world with one superpower, even less so.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 589
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby SDK » Wed Sep 30, 2015 6:13 pm UTC

Habz wrote:True, they'll probably do the trick eventually. But how many billions of people will be born in the meantime? And how many killed?

The few predictions I've seen, extrapolating from current popluation growth, puts our maximum population at about 9 billion before we naturally start to decline thanks to low birthrates. 9 billion is a big number, to be sure, but the Earth should be able to handle it with the right policies in place to limit over-consumption.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 30, 2015 7:17 pm UTC

European countries typically have 60-80 years of relative peace followed by extreme war. While France and Spain can be going at it, Holland could be in prosperity. But with WWII, all the countries had war at the same time. So 60-80 years later...

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby morriswalters » Wed Sep 30, 2015 8:12 pm UTC

SDK wrote:
Habz wrote:True, they'll probably do the trick eventually. But how many billions of people will be born in the meantime? And how many killed?

The few predictions I've seen, extrapolating from current popluation growth, puts our maximum population at about 9 billion before we naturally start to decline thanks to low birthrates. 9 billion is a big number, to be sure, but the Earth should be able to handle it with the right policies in place to limit over-consumption.
Right, and you would know this how? And we should control over consumption by doing what?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 30, 2015 8:28 pm UTC

By adopting GMO food which produces more per acre? By recycling and mandating that electronics manufacturers make things more easily recyclable (or better yet, more durable)? By adopting nuclear power and wind (all others including solar suck in some manner)?

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 589
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby SDK » Wed Sep 30, 2015 8:34 pm UTC

Yeah, there's lots that can be done regarding over consumption. Goals number 7, 11 and 12 directly relate. Sustainability is complicated and difficult, but we more or less already know what needs to be done to get there. Not saying we will get there, but we can.

There's also lots of room in Canada for a few more people... Fail enough at goal 13 and they might even be comfortable!
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

Derek
Posts: 2168
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby Derek » Wed Sep 30, 2015 11:15 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:European countries typically have 60-80 years of relative peace followed by extreme war. While France and Spain can be going at it, Holland could be in prosperity. But with WWII, all the countries had war at the same time. So 60-80 years later...

European historically countries fought way more often than that. The first remotely long peace in Europe was after the Napoleonic Wars. That was lasted until the 1850's (about forty years), when there was a series of wars (Crimean War, Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussion War, Italian Unification Wars) followed by peace (another forty years or so) until World Wars I and II.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby morriswalters » Wed Sep 30, 2015 11:48 pm UTC

SDK wrote:Yeah, there's lots that can be done regarding over consumption. Goals number 7, 11 and 12 directly relate. Sustainability is complicated and difficult, but we more or less already know what needs to be done to get there. Not saying we will get there, but we can.

There's also lots of room in Canada for a few more people... Fail enough at goal 13 and they might even be comfortable!
The question was, how do you know that we haven't already exceeded the carrying capacity? With a second question of how do you limit consumption?

The goals presented are laudable, but are they achievable? Seafood is a large source of food production but there are indications that we are taking more than the oceans can replace now. A lot of the damage is being done by people who figure they will be dead before the problem can hurt them.

Climate appears to be changing and a lot of water supplies are under stress through the overuse of aquifers. Can we count on rainfall being where it is needed, when it is needed, produced at rates which allows the land to retain it? California is looking this question in the eye now. The UN talks the talk, but can they walk the walk.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: UN Announces 'Global Goals'

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:26 am UTC

Derek wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:European countries typically have 60-80 years of relative peace followed by extreme war. While France and Spain can be going at it, Holland could be in prosperity. But with WWII, all the countries had war at the same time. So 60-80 years later...

European historically countries fought way more often than that. The first remotely long peace in Europe was after the Napoleonic Wars. That was lasted until the 1850's (about forty years), when there was a series of wars (Crimean War, Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussion War, Italian Unification Wars) followed by peace (another forty years or so) until World Wars I and II.


In each country, not Europe as a whole. As a continent it was always at war somewhere.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests