ITF W50 Bengaluru, Pune, Indore- Jan 14-Feb 4, 2024

[prasen9]

Actually saying "Hello civilization" what ticked of most of the people. That was racist.

This is the point. It is quite ridiculous coming from a war mongering nation with little to no historical civilizational contributions. And when you add her lack of achievement in tennis, it comes off as badly as when RamK acts like a petulant child on court.

It is not ad-hominem to discuss someone like this, I also believe she lives in Paris which says a lot about her shallowness.

I agree that using "civilization" shows her lack of class.

The definition of ad hominem is to discuss the writer and not to debate the content of the piece. It is ad hominem to the T by definition. If you want, I can quote a definition and quote your post above but being lazy.

And, why is living in Paris shallow? A lot of people live in a lot of places they are not born in. In fact, zealous nationalism is a curse that causes wars and deaths of a lot of people that is useless and can be avoided.

And, once again saying that Serbia has no historical civilizational contributions is nonsense just like saying the world population is not increasing is flat out wrong. Human beings have been there for a long time. For example, check out the Starčevo and Vinča cultures in about 6500 B.C. They are too close to Rome and Greece, etc. and too close to Africa for there not being human beings and for them not having developed some culture at that time.

[Sin Hombre]

Actually saying "Hello civilization" what ticked of most of the people. That was racist.

This is the point. It is quite ridiculous coming from a war mongering nation with little to no historical civilizational contributions. And when you add her lack of achievement in tennis, it comes off as badly as when RamK acts like a petulant child on court.

It is not ad-hominem to discuss someone like this, I also believe she lives in Paris which says a lot about her shallowness.

I agree that using "civilization" shows her lack of class.

The definition of ad hominem is to discuss the writer and not to debate the content of the piece. It is ad hominem to the T by definition. If you want, I can quote a definition and quote your post above but being lazy.

And, why is living in Paris shallow? A lot of people live in a lot of places they are not born in. In fact, zealous nationalism is a curse that causes wars and deaths of a lot of people that is useless and can be avoided.

And, once again saying that Serbia has no historical civilizational contributions is nonsense just like saying the world population is not increasing is flat out wrong. Human beings have been there for a long time. For example, check out the Starčevo and Vinča cultures in about 6500 B.C. They are too close to Rome and Greece, etc. and too close to Africa for there not being human beings and for them not having developed some culture at that time.

We are literally talking about someone whose entire rant started from "hello civilization". It is not ad-hominem to dismiss someone like her immediately. I don't know about you but I would do the same who would start with "Heil hitler" or "india is fascist" or any such absurd proclamations. Idiots abound and my time is limited and precious.

I don't know how living in certain places has anything to do with zealous nationalism. People can live wherever they want and I myself have lived in 5 countries. That said and maybe you don't but I definitely judge certain people living in Miami/LA/Paris and thinking they are living in the height of culture/civilization. Good for you for not being judgmental but just like India being dirty is a stereotype based out of facts, so are the stereotypes of people who move to these places for certain reasons.

And this is now very off-topic, but increasing world population is NOT an issue. It might have been an issue in the 60s/70s/80s academic literature that you might have grown up with (see I can play the same game ) but it is not factual now when the majority of the countries are below replacement rate and we have seen enough developmental trends to know that the others will get there in a few decades as well. I am not going to respond to this petulant girl's rant again but happy to go over population debate in

[prasen9]

Well, it is ad hominem by definition. There is enough in some of the crap she has written to argue against that and one can. I would not go into attacking her. If you want to change the definition of ad hominem, then no word means anything and everything is or is not what it is. If someone starts with "Heil Hitler" or "Modi is fascist" or whatever, then you can argue the message. Praising Hitler is barbaric, etc. We do not need to go into bringing the person into the argument. When you do that you are getting into ad hominem arguments, by definition. That is a poor debating strategy. There was enough in that post that was nonsense.

It is utter nonsense to say that LA/Miami/Paris or whatever is civilized. She wants to live in Paris or in Mars wherever does not matter. What is easy to denounce is her rhetoric. Some of the comments were so ludicrous that it can easily be debunked, etc. We don't need to go into where she lives, etc. It is your choice to bring that up and my choice to say that we don't need these ad hominem attacks to denounce such a post. The content is putrid enough.

Wrt world population, your initial claim was that the world population was not increasing. That is flat out wrong. Second, world population is directly responsible for the climate disaster and the sixth great extinction of species. Those, of course, are not of concern to you because all you care about is probably money (and development and poverty). But, that is not the only thing that a lot of us care about. In the long run, this population will result in lots of damage to us via climate issues, etc. and will cost us wrt money too but that may not happen if we can innovate out of it. The climate disaster and the extinction of the species will be irreversible or reversible using, again technologies that we have hardly developed and it is not easy to say when that will happen. The better way is to stop this overpopulation by population control. Yes, that will result in shocks to our economies but those can be mitigated by allowing immigration, etc.

[Sin Hombre]

Humanity has a declining population crisis which is massively accelerating. Overpopulation is not an issue.

I think you need better reading comprehension if you inferred that I said world population is not increasing from this. China as an example still had an increasing population in 2019 but it was obvious to anyone who wanted to engage their brains that they were in the midst of a declining population crisis. Demographic trends are evident decades before they actually materialize.

And also find it hilarious that you think that declining population shocks can be solved by immigration. Where are those people going to come from? Mars? What is going to happen to the nations where they come from.

Climate change is not going to be solved or even mitigated by reenacting policies like China's original one-child policy. The average person in the US still has 10x the emissions of the average person in India and 40x the average Nigerian. Cutting down on consumerism is the first step instead of creating demographical and societal challenges. Stop supporting high carbon footprint suburban lifestyles. It is easy to point fingers at some poor person in UP or in Nigeria and claim that them having children is the cause of planetary ills, and not the high consumerism, suburban lifestyle most people in the US espouse as the American dream.

And yes I care about everyone having the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty and not get shoveled by half-baked Western thoughts.

[prasen9]

There is a huge imbalance in the ages of populations worldwide. Look at the median age of Tanzania vs any of the western countries. Immigration can dull the effect. Of course, if the overall world population falls, then at some point you will not have people to move from somewhere to elsewhere. But, if you have say a 2 child/couple rate, that will reduce the population slowly (due to some kids not reaching reproduction age, etc.) and get us towards a more population that is sustainable while not destroying the ecological balance of the earth at such a devastating rate. It is possible to reduce at a greater rate without causing great harm. Of course, the trick is to do this in a managed form without all the parochalism, nationalism, etc.

China is your strawman. I did not say we need to follow China's policy of closed borders and random reduction to 1 child by force.

Climate change will be solved if we all realize that the real solution is to reduce the overall population. Who cares about someone whose boneheaded policy is not conducive to addressing climate change. If we reduce consumption that will help but increasing the population will cut against that. We need to reduce population. There will be short-term pains but eventually a country will be better off with fewer people and the world will be better off.

Human beings cause environmental damage par excellence. The sixth great extinction will be accelerated, like climate change, with more people.

The equation is very simple. Fewer people means less resources per person, less land consumption, etc. That means more opportunities for other animals to exist, the land to be better managed, less CO2 we breath out, the less CO2 we emit, etc.

Even for development, in the long run, having a smaller population means more resources/person and that will increase the quality of life. Not to say the benefits of cleaner air, better environmental and ecological conditions, etc.

Pointing to U.S. consumerism is like a failing child pointing to the last guy in class. The number of wildlife species in India has been decimated. That is not due to U.S. consumerism. Indians are suffering due to pollution in our biggest cities with poor quality of life that will get poorer if we increase the number of people living in the country. The amount of land is fixed. It is stupid to encourage the farmer in U.P. to have five kids.

Poverty is not helped by following asinine development models that pollute the heck of the earth. See, i can play the strawman game too.