Funkytom467

What do you mean by population crisis?

In the world it’s the other way around, the demographics are still booming.

You know what came before having better birth control and lower birth rates in most developed countries, medicine and lower death rate. In most of them now both are pretty close (most because there are exceptions like Japan).

I’m not really sure i see a problem with a slight decrease in population in a place where there is already a lot of people.

Well depends what you mean by birth control… is it a way to prevent pregnancy or children?

Since birth is in the name i’d say the term is better suited for referring to anything preventing the birth of a children. But what the term refers to has no barring on what’s happening.

It never meant people don’t make a difference. Any reasonable women knows and feel the difference.

The fact it’s less safe and has worse effects on your health is just another way we realize how serious an abortion is. It will never be inconsequential even if it was safe.

Please do not to trust anyone who says people disagree with this. They all have a political reason to lie.

Ski ba bop ba dop bop I’m a scatcat!

Well China’s gonna take it in 2077 anyway.

On a first date i’d also avoid the past. Even without being traumatic your past has some privacy. For some it’s more private than others. But it’s never the goal of a first encounter.

No it’s based on League of Legends. Much more toxic than valorant even if both are developed by the same company, riot games.

Honestly Valorant could have been much worse if not for riot learning their lessons and being on top of it shutting down a lot of reasons to be toxic.

P.S. The lore on the other hand is so much richer in LoL

Destroying a system means there isn’t anything in place and also that you weaken the power of your own side because you had to go through all the violence needed.

That’s obvious but it also explains why worse system can rise, but also that it’s not always a doomed endeavor. I think the context has a lot to do with what will occurs next.

The best exemple i could give is the French Revolution. It was followed by the worst Napoleonic wars. But its philosophers founded the building block for the republic that’s still in place to this day.

The red revolution against tsarist has brought a lot of positive foundation from which Russian could arguably have builded upon after the war, if not for Gorbachev.

I’m not gonna go to much into any hypothetical but what Lenin created had a real and positive influence in the rest of Europe at least.

At the worst end of the spectrum Iran really had nothing left to build upon, the situation there is catastrophic on all front. So if not for the US the country isn’t gonna stand on its legs any time soon.

I think the evolution of the end of a system, even through those three exemple, can go into so many different path. It’s hard to really predict anything, especially without taking into account all the parameters and context.

I wanna see her slap!

Should have added the face of that baby in the sun

With the enshittification Bethesda has already started to go through, it’s a good bet.

The ideal solution you propose was often used when we used glass.

The only reason we could have started throwing our containers is because plastic is so much cheaper.

To be fair, when we used glass, fewer product were transported long distance.

Nowadays we can do like Germany who incentives to bring back bottles for recycling.

Or an even better alternative would be to use glass for individuals and another method for transportation.

Although i’ve seen some bio stores starting to refill plastic containers, wich isn’t perfect but a nice middle ground to start changing habits.

Dialectic can never be a science, you can’t apply the same methodology. Even when it’s material.

However it is philosophy, and if your searching for some material reality then it’s ontology.

Science too is a product of ontology, it’s a methodology created for this exact purpose and wich can be studied in this field.

Saying physical properties are social abstractions sounds to me like social constructivism, which is epistemology, again philosophy.

Social sciences can be soft science precisely when they are not dialectic and rely on the methodology of science.

And to be clear, soft science is just a science that is based on a hard science, in which we don’t have enough work done to explain every emergent properties using fundamental properties of matter.

Psychoanalysis is an outdated philosophical theory, so indeed just a scam now.