Do we need population reduction?

[philipacentaur]

Simple answer: Global capitalism.

[chlamor]

In order to introduce myself to this debate, I would just ask a simple question

40 years ago, it seems we were capable of putting a man on the moon.

Apparently, this rock isnt capable of sustaining our population.

Do is not strike anyone on a "rigorous" forum, that we can't expand our existing space technology to either

a) colonise space ?

or

b) use existing technology to ensure plenty on this planet for all ?

Or

c) Im the fucking village idiot here

Ever looked into the total energy costs of one "space ship?"

Never gonna happen. Physically impossible.

Give or take a few years all space flight will cease within the next few decades due to physical limitations on materials needed.

A few years beyond that most all flight will be severely curtailed and available to only the elites.

Be sure to examine all aspects of construction beginning with the mining for materials and the amount of energy that consumes. Go from there.

So that which was achievable 40 yrs ago , has suddenly become financially inachievable ?

I guess its a true "miracle" then that

A) the average taxpayer can still fund the technology required to blow his fellow man to bits.

B) The cost of sending man to the moon back then is, relatively speaking, peanuts to that cost today.


Let me ask a simple question ;

Why is it that I can buy a PC today, with 20 times the processing power of 5 years ago, for approximately half the cost ?


Is this forum called Rigorous Intuition or what ?

You're talking abstractions. Fiat currency and what it deems as "doable" has zero connection with the real world no matter how it may have convinced you otherwise.

Again I ask have you actually examined what it takes to build one aircraft, all materials and energy requirements, and examined any data on what the current status of these materials are worldwide?

If not all of your calculations are wrong from the start.

If you're thinking somehow that we are going to find some other place in space to live on, we humans, that's pure fantasy.

As for the reason you request the answer is massive subsidies and copious amounts of cheap labor from slaves in China, Malaysia, The Congo etc.

"Is this forum called Rigorous Intuition or what ?"

I think so.

[slimmouse]

In order to introduce myself to this debate, I would just ask a simple question

40 years ago, it seems we were capable of putting a man on the moon.

Apparently, this rock isnt capable of sustaining our population.

Do is not strike anyone on a "rigorous" forum, that we can't expand our existing space technology to either

a) colonise space ?

or

b) use existing technology to ensure plenty on this planet for all ?

Or

c) Im the fucking village idiot here

Ever looked into the total energy costs of one "space ship?"

Never gonna happen. Physically impossible.

Give or take a few years all space flight will cease within the next few decades due to physical limitations on materials needed.

A few years beyond that most all flight will be severely curtailed and available to only the elites.

Be sure to examine all aspects of construction beginning with the mining for materials and the amount of energy that consumes. Go from there.

So that which was achievable 40 yrs ago , has suddenly become financially inachievable ?

I guess its a true "miracle" then that

A) the average taxpayer can still fund the technology required to blow his fellow man to bits.

B) The cost of sending man to the moon back then is, relatively speaking, peanuts to that cost today.


Let me ask a simple question ;

Why is it that I can buy a PC today, with 20 times the processing power of 5 years ago, for approximately half the cost ?


Is this forum called Rigorous Intuition or what ?

You're talking abstractions. Fiat currency and what it deems as "doable" has zero connection with the real world no matter how it may have convinced you otherwise.

Again I ask have you actually examined what it takes to build one aircraft, all materials and energy requirements, and examined any data on what the current status of these materials are worldwide?

If not all of your calculations are wrong from the start.

If you're thinking somehow that we are going to find some other place in space to live on, we humans, that's pure fantasy.

As for the reason you request the answer is massive subsidies and copious amounts of cheap labor from slaves in China, Malaysia, The Congo etc.

"Is this forum called Rigorous Intuition or what ?"

I think so.

Once anyone on this forum can explain to me, how there is more profit in spending your taxes on threatening each other with the threat of extinction, as opposed to spending that same money on building new houses, or advancing the cause of modern medicine, or just for the fucking sake of it, sending rockets into space, then you have my vote.

I aint holding my breath, just like anyone else with half a brain.

[chiggerbit]

Wintler said:

Your assumption that human nature is the easy and obvious thing to change is delusional

Well, actually, I'm not sure that that's true. If there is a negative consequence, I believe that behavior changes, on average. If there is a positive reinforcement, the behavior increases, on average. For instance, here in the US, most employer insurance plans cover individual and family coverage with no difference for the family coverage premiums over the individual plan. The family coverage is a flat plan for a family, of any size, whether one or fifteen. If the employee had to pay per person for their family for that coverage, they would most likely have second thoughts about producing 10 or fifteen children. Same goes for welfare. If the welfare recipient gets an additional amount for each child up to the third child, take my word for it, most of them will max it out. Same goes for our tax systen, which gives tax breaks for each additional child in the family. In each of these instances, there is a positive reinforcement for producing children. Compare that to a theoretical situation in which an employer paid an employee an additional amount in wages for each additional child in the employee's family, what do you think might happen? Take away that positive reinforcement, and additional children would then become negative reinforcers.

[Horatio Hellpop]

Has anyone read P.J. O'Rourke's take on overpopulation? He makes good use of population density statistics to illustrate the inherent problems with the argument for population control. Unfortunately, I don't have the book (All the Trouble in the World) on me but he gives exmples of countries like Bangladesh having the same population density as Fremont, CA. However, you rarely hear conerned people worrying about the overpopulation problem of Fremont.

He also calculates how we could fit the entire population of the world into various tiny countries and states if we wanted to live with the same population density of say NYC for wont of a better example.

I'm sure there will be people here that dislike his politics, but I can't see a problem with his math.

[chiggerbit]

P. J. O'Rourke, the satirist?

[wintler2]

.. If there is a negative consequence, I believe that behavior changes, on average. If there is a positive reinforcement, the behavior increases, on average. ..

All true, and a nice set of examples too.
But how would you implement more-gets-less behaviour signals? Your most vociferous opponents would prob be christians, but also include every its-my-right-stop-fascist-government zealot and everyone whos ever enjoyed, dreamed of or created a large family.

Fundamentally i think procreation is the payoff for collaborating in capitalism, and many ppl think they deserve/have earnt lots of kids: "i work hard blah blah..". In a sense they have, cos they've conformed/grovelled for decades to keep a job & earn money and they wont ever get those years back, so by god they'll get their payoff. I agree that ubiquitous availability of contraception + sufficient incentives + serious education efforts could cut fertility in a decade or three, problem is there is currently nearly no support for it. It is possible to change behaviour, but only if ppl want change and strongly support the means and ends.

Has anyone read P.J. O'Rourke's take on overpopulation? He makes good use of population density statistics to illustrate the inherent problems with the argument for population control. Unfortunately, I don't have the book (All the Trouble in the World) on me but he gives exmples of countries like Bangladesh having the same population density as Fremont, CA. However, you rarely hear conerned people worrying about the overpopulation problem of Fremont.

He also calculates how we could fit the entire population of the world into various tiny countries and states if we wanted to live with the same population density of say NYC for wont of a better example.

I'm sure there will be people here that dislike his politics, but I can't see a problem with his math.

Haven't read the book but am very dubious about his maths - sounds like he didn't factor in the HUGE resource inflows that make Freemont & NYC viable as high density populations. Stop the phenomenal inflow of food/water/oil/gas/timber/paper/plastic/etc etc and all major cities would collapse in a day. If Bangladeshs paper currency was backed by the worlds biggest military it could 'buy' everybody elses resources and noone would worry about overpopulation, but it isn't & they can't (incidentally illustrating the true-but-limited equity argument). No city is self sufficient in any of these resources, yet O'Roukes maths assume they all are and can continue to be so.

[wintler2]

.. Once anyone on this forum can explain to me, how there is more profit in spending your taxes on threatening each other with the threat of extinction, as opposed to spending that same money on building new houses, or advancing the cause of modern medicine, or just for the fucking sake of it, sending rockets into space, then you have my vote.

I aint holding my breath, just like anyone else with half a brain.

Too too easy: The US junta supporting Saudi royal family ensures their oil sold in US$, which US junta prints at will, making oil remarkably cheap & profitable.

Suspect your confusion arises from equating dispersed and powerless beneficiaries(taxpayers) with powerful and concentrated beneficiaries (oil CEOs & major shareholders). The latter have their shit together and so run the show, taxpayers 'couldn't find their arse with both hands'.

If so sure space is the easy next step, how come we can't maintain just one space station, even with international collaboration? I don't think we'll even make it to the moon again, at least not this century.

[slow_dazzle]

I have heard about this documentary but I don't know anything about the author...so don't shout at me if he is a promoter of forced sterilisation or anything of that ilk.

The documentary seems to be worth viewing in the context of the issues under discussion in this thread.

CLICK HERE

[Horatio Hellpop]

Wintler I appreciate your point and obviously O'Rourke is being purely hypothetical. I have strong confidence that the issues of resource allocation and maintenance can and will be refined, and that overpopulation is not an issue.

There are some strange fuckers in this world who believe they have the right to decide what standard of life is worth living. Who's to say that 10 years spent living next to a garbage dump is worse than having never been born?

"I'm sorry sir and madam, but your bloodline stops here. See you live next to a dump and we don't feel that happy about it back in Washington. I realize your country is making advances and there is a chance that in twenty years time your children may already be out of poverty but unfortunately we've already decided"

Maybe I'm projecting here, but many of these calls for mass sterilizations, poulation reduction and so on strike me as being adolescent attention seeking.

[wintler2]

..Maybe I'm projecting here, but many of these calls for mass sterilizations, poulation reduction and so on strike me as being adolescent attention seeking.

Quote me one poster that has called for mass sterilisation.

[Dreams End]

1. People who are under terrible economic pressure (i.e., people who have nothing else but a scrap of farming land) tend to have lots of children, many of whom will die.

2. People who are under no economic pressure (i.e., people who have everything ) also tend to have lots of children, nearly all of whom will survive.

You allergic to data? They have a shot for that.

Here's a table of world POPULATION growth by country. As you can see, the big economic powers are not at the top of the list. (In fact, you can click on the words "population growth rate" to sort the list by rate rather than alphabetically.)

http://tinyurl.com/3cjhym

The U.S. is listed as .92...but I think immigration accounts for a chunk of that. UK is at .28. European union in general a measly .15.

Logic is good but logic with data is better. Anyway what this suggests is that for the most part, as per capita income goes up, population growth diminishes. Some countries have special challenges. South Africa actually has negative population growth due to how widespread AIDS is.

One thing that might be somewhat disheartening to pop control advocates is that China, with it's very harsh one child regimen still has a growth rate of .58.

Interestingly, despite the alleged "genocide" of the Palestinians, the Gaza strip has a population rate of increase of 3.77. But whatever your position on the Gaza Strip...that level of population increase in such a small area with, I imagine, very poor infrastructure, is a recipe for disaster. Well...MORE disaster. West Bank has a similar rate of population increase. The middle East in general has a fairly high population rate. This includes rich countries like Kuwait, though I wonder if income is distributed very evenly there...likely not. Is Islam as strict about no birth control as Catholics? Meanwhile, though, Italy has a very low pop increase. And many of the Catholic countries in South America are not particularly high. So the influence of the church in those countries is waning in this regard perhaps?

Population is complex....my "truism" however, is true. For the most part, as countries become more economically well off, the birth rate AND THE POPULATION GROWTH RATE level off and decline.

So, when we talk about POPULATION control we are talking about Africa and the Middle East. If you want to talk about better or more just use of resources then we can look West.

In general, land area is not an issue...wintler is right that it's a matter of resources getting to people. Again, however...how much of that is a natural result of geography (desertification in Africa or something) and how much is economic system?

If the U.S. reduced our beef consumption by 50% tomorrow (not likely) how could the many, many tons of grain be put to better use? Well, under the current system, I'm not even sure. You can't flood a market with grain and then put local farmers out of work...in the free market too much "charity" can actually be harmful.

But that makes me against the free market. Not against "charity."

That said...first random site I came to discussing this says:

* More than one third of the world's grain harvest is used to feed livestock. 1
* Breaking that down a little bit 2
o Almost all rice is consumed by people
o While corn is a staple food in many Latin American and Sub-Saharan countries, “worldwide, it is used largely as feed.”
o Wheat is more evenly divided between food and feed and is a staple food in many regions such as the West, China and India.
* The total cattle population for the world is approximately 1.3 billion occupying some 24% of the land of the planet 3
* Some 70 to 80% of grain produced in the United States is fed to livestock 4
* Half the water consumed in the U.S. is used to grow grain for cattle feed. 5
* A gallon of gasoline is required to produce a pound of grain-fed beef. 6

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelate ... n/Beef.asp

See what I mean?

When you can tell me such ridiculous uses of resources have all been taken into account when suggesting there are "too many people" then we can talk about population control.

[Gouda]

Wintler, could you direct us to any groups, orgs, movements or thinkers which you regard as addressing "overpopulation" solutions in the best possible way? Who's credible or trustworthy. Who's got the numbers and the plan. How should "population reform" happen. You may personally have some right ideas, but who's got the power to implement?

I think many of us here get understandably vigilant when we hear overpopulation alarms being sounded by elite establishment figures, green supercapitalists, and/or front groups for separatists, supremacists and other outright fascists. Suspicion of recurring genocide agendas are well justified, given its history - especially in today's (sometimes) more subtle era where global market capitalism and its agents are desperate, meaner than hell, craftier than the devil, and facing a do or die moment as most of the poverty-enforced world threatens a rightful backlash against their interests.

[Hammer of Los]

Call me a fool, but I believe in the virtually unlimited (possibly even literally unlimited) potential of the human mind to find solutions to "material" problems. Folk say this is impossible, that is impossible - but who can say what may be possible in the future? Or even what is possible now with technologies that have not as yet been made publicly available? No-one. You might answer, ah, but laws of physics cannot change. Er, yes they can, they are an invention that changes all the time, and I don't mean like when the towers collapsed on 9-11. A "law of physics" is an invention of the human mind derived from our limited understanding of the world. Our understanding of the world is subject to constant revision, certainty does not behove the human organism.

And again, people act as if "human nature" is wholly understood and immutable. What nonsense! I hate the idea that "human nature" is implacable and unchanging, and that each one of us will always be greedy, selfish, violent and competitive. It's simply not true. Of course, it suits certain types and classes of people for the masses to believe so.

I do not believe that either coercing people's reproductive choices, or mass-murder, whether through passive or active means, are necessary to solve the problems facing the poorest people on this planet, ie their day to day survival. And in any case, in what sense is removing them or their future families a solution for them? No, it is all about the greed of the few seeing the very existence of other human beings as a problem they have to solve. Justice and survival for all could easily be guaranteed. BUT, clearly in order to arrange this, the will of the controllers has to change. That is the most important thing. I guess you could do this by persuading the controllers, or coercing the controllers, or changing the identity of the controllers. You might think achieving these things will be difficult, a proposition with which I would be in full agreement.

I guess my position is summed up in the following truisms;

"Where there's a will, there's a way," and "necessity is the mother of invention."

So, I think I agree with Slim on this one. I like Slim.

Of course, for any number of reasons, we are likely to see increasing human casualties over the next decades. It is terribly sad, but not exactly inevitable, although it certainly seems that way. And in case I wasn't clear earlier, I believe the likes of Kissinger et al are already using war, famine and disease, quite deliberately, as part of their "solution" to this "problem." Just too many damn non-white people on this planet you see. Certainly many things would have to change for real solutions to arise to the real problems of the human race. The current "lifestyles" of the west are likely to be unsustainable, thank God, since they are pernicious, materialist lifestyles not conducive to the welfare of the human organism. The real wealth of the human being resides in the life of the mind, a life which is infinite and unbounded and infinitely rewarding;

"I could be bound in a nutshell, and consider myself king of infinite space, where it not that I have bad dreams."

See! I'm an intellectual! I'm reeling of relevant Shakespearian quotes from memory! My word, I'm clever!

[chiggerbit]

Hammer of Los said:

I hate the idea that "human nature" is implacable and unchanging, and that each one of us will always be greedy, selfish, violent and competitive. It's simply not true. Of course, it suits certain types and classes of people for the masses to believe so.

You almost contradict yourself, Hammer. Are not these "certain types and classes of people" also open to achieving a higher nature? Sounds like a good goal to me. So, how do we do it?