You must log in or # to comment.
Jaheira is so goddamn based
If you are unable to love a human being you conceived unconditionally, don’t have a child.
This is so logical to me. Like, I remember growing up that you would get a pet to learn how to care for something like a child in the future. If you can’t walk a dog or clean a liter box when it’s too hard or you don’t want to, you either need to understand having a child isn’t right for you or you have a lot of personal growth to go through before you’re ready.
Is that Jaheira? I mean, she would say that.
deleted by creator
Or disabled, or a different religion, or “difficult” in any way…
Totally agree. And it isn’t just about accepting. It’s about being there for them, paying attention and supporting. We have a few “difficulties” with our son but as parents it’s our responsibility to do what we can to support and help him.
Way too many people are not educated well enough to be parents, I know I just argued with people who say there should be less kids, but like, my parents did best they knew and I turned out pretty fucked up, 3 psychiatry docs quite confidently gave me contradictory diagnoses, that feels like an achievement
We recently got an in-house overnight hospitalist at my tiny inner city hospital. She was on our psych unit doing medical assessments for new admissions and asked, “How can all of these people have schizoaffective? Is that just what they put when they don’t know?” I almost choked on my coffee.
Honestly, it’s also just what people get diagnosed with when their primary problem is actually just homelessness. Homelessness is a “risk factor,” not a diagnosis you can bill Medicaid for. Sure, they might have some combination of psychosis, mood instability, poor social skills, inability to care for their bodies, and maybe substance use sprinkled in. But the street just produces that. Exposure, starvation, assaults by humans and animals, untreated wounds—all of it combines into a swirling pile of physical and emotional risk factors.
Eventually, if someone manages not to actually go crazy, they’ll often fake or exaggerate symptoms to get admitted to the relative safety of the psych ward. Then they stamp schizoaffective on the chart, prescribe a mood stabilizer and a second-generation antipsychotic, let them stay a week, and discharge them back to the street to start the cycle over.
as an aside...
…if they’re an absolute menace while they’re there (say, physically capable of bathing and toileting but shitting their pants and yelling at a 20-year-old nursing assistant that it’s her job to clean them) they might get labeled antisocial or malingering and get discharged and refused admission. But those are rare cases. Most homeless people seeking three hots and a cot are prickly at worst (which like, yeah). Usually, we’re both just resigned to it while I’m admitting them. After I finish the annoying parts, I’ll steal them a blanket from the warmer on medical.
Seriously, if we just put people in houses, the mental health system would be halfway fixed. Many would still need occupational rehab or intensive skills training to avoid putting forks in microwaves or flooding residential bathrooms. But that would still be a million times cheaper than forcing me to do intensive, invasive acute psychiatry bullshit on people who barely qualify as a threat to themselves or others, simply because they end up on the same unit for lack of anywhere better to send them.
What is a hospitalist?
It’s the doctor whose entire specialty is the general environment of the inpatient hospital, they also might be called an “internist” as in “internal medicine.” The outpatient equivalent is a primary care, general practice, or family physician, since they both handle all body systems at once. The hospitalist is usually the attending / resident for an admitted patient for something basic like pneumonia or early stage heart or kidney disease (or some complicated combination of multiple that’s not well handled by any one specialist). Once those are advanced in one particular organ or system they get taken by a cardiologist or nephrologist etc but for most patients the hospitalist is the doctor in charge. In psychiatry the psychiatrist is the attending / primary team, but the hospitalist is consulted to do a brief medical assessment to handle any underlying medical conditions like diabetes so that the psychiatrist doesn’t fuck up their insulin or heart medicine.
Interesting! Thank you for educating me.
Achievement Unlocked: Western Schism
ok but who else read that as “Queer Chud” at first?
not the queer chuds! 😭
deleted by creator
Why not?
deleted by creator
Plus there are lots of foster/adoptable kids who need a loving home.
But… that’s becoming a parent…
deleted by creator
That logic is completely adultered.
There is a very small percentage of individuals that take for themselves and control resources they have no need for.
Eliminate that and 90% of the problem is solved.
And what is stopping people to adopt? Pride? Or perhaps an overzealous system?
far too many people
On what base? If it’s about resources, there are plenty renewable resources for even more people than now. It’s more about how we use them. If people live like americans then I agree.
the planet is at a breaking point
That’s more to do with the unsustainable way we treat the planet. So, more to do with the systems in place than the amount of people.
[citation needed]
3 billion was an estimate for long term sustainable population size with first world living standards (Europeans are just as bad as Americans for the planet). If you mean surviving at subsistence levels then that number can go up a lot, but you have to accept droughts and natural disasters killing lots of people from time to time.
If these estimates have changed I would like to update my understanding.Europeans are just as bad as Americans for the planet
https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/content/uploads/2022/03/How_many_Earths_2022_EN_sm.jpg
Feel free to look at the sources and data.
[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation#Criticism
Basically, the population is predicted to naturally decrease, any active efforts to reduce the population is not only unnecessary but will be plagued by questions about racism, eugenics, and social justice.
Then, the belief that there are too many people shifts the blame from the ones responsible of our unsustainability to the common folk. It will redirect efforts to build a sustainable society to reducing population. But we were unsustainable even with a tiny fraction of our population. It’s now how many we are, but how sustainably we behave.
For the population link, the arguments make no sense to me. Population growth is slowing, but is still going up. There is not enough resources to support 9 billion people unless most of them live at a low level. There is more then just energy included in ‘resources’ so no amount of solar power fixes the issue long term currently.
Population growth is slowing, but is still going up
Look at the population pyramids of the US, Europe, China, India. Population’s reaching the peak. Only Africa is not yet at its peak, probably for economic reasons.
There is not enough resources to support 9 billion people unless most of them live at a low level.
My turn to play the [citation needed] card :^)
There is more then just energy included in ‘resources’ so no amount of solar power fixes the issue long term currently.
Sustainability and renewables also mean resources being dug up stay in the loop and can be recycled. There’s no physical reason not to be able to reuse a lot of the resources we need.
You can’t just say “citation needed” and then provide no citation for your quite big claim, that’s just dumb. Does your source take into the account that whole EU is supposed to transition to clean energy by 2055, for example? Or that (theoretically) we have the ability for our power grids to run pretty much for free (obv with maintenance) if we do pivot into 100% renevable? I have no idea, tho my assumption would be that they don’t.
Don’t get distracted, the European comment was just because I get tired of the whole ‘our shit doesn’t stink’ attitude.
No, ur not getting it. Theoretical projections have to have a methodology, and obviously cannot take everything into account. You bring up a figure, but I have no idea what is the projected state of the world you speak of, whether it projects that attempts of transforming the grid like that of EU would be ineffective, or that it’s a statement about the current state of infrastructure. Without the source I find that figure completely arbitrary, and you had the audacity to ask for a source in the very same message
who did the estimate? was it the think tank wlthat came up with “carbon footprint”?
I really don’t remember. This was from a college class decades ago. I am sure it is out of date and am hoping for better estimates. I will look for it myself, but i was hoping the person whose comment I replied to might have some links.
Bullshit. The planet kinda is at a breaking point, but due to irresponsible exploitation of resources. India, despite having over 4 times the population of US, actually produced slightly more than half as much CO2, their emission per capita being over 7 times lower (https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ if you want to dispute my source, I do admit I chose the first google link). Yes. That is just one metric, yes, India can be criticized for a lot of things, but as for right now I see global warming as the #1 environmental threat, and that does not directly map to population density at all, moreso to what kind of infrastructure there is and how efficient it is. By natural properties of scaling things up, sufficient infrastructure sustaining denser populated areas becomes (obviously up to a point) more efficient. And yea, a place can be overpopulated, but not an entire planet, not in any currently feasible scenario
India, despite having over 4 times the population of US, actually produced slightly more than half as much CO2
Sounds like people in the US shouldn’t have kids then.
I assume you said that jokingly, but if not, I cannot really agree
US has notoriously inefficient infrastructure and I forgot the actual data but, continuing comparisons to India, have like 7 or so times smaller population density. So like, US is far from overpopulated, the correct answer is infrastructure focus.
