Over population derail from "Humans as non-animals"

[Elixir]

The problem is whether we take action in time to avert catastrophe. I find that unlikely.

What has already occurred is catastrophic.
But younger people will never know it.

What has happened so far is not a major threat to mankind.

The species can survive catastrophes. Including what has already occurred.
A person can survive multiple amputations as well. That doesn’t mean events resulting in amputations are not catastrophic.

 

[DBT]

Yet it remains that there are limits to growth. That perpetual growth is an illusion.

arguing for perpetual growth? Yes, there's a good chance we'll never have the technology to expand our species beyond the Local Group of galaxies, which means we're forever limited to the resources of two or three trillion star systems. But whose theories require us to get more than that?

Our politicians and economists tend get quite agitated whenever the economy slows down, yet alone stabilizes. The solution? Boost immigration to stimulate the economy.

Politicians, meh. They tend to be Ponzi scheme artists with a professional incentive to kick cans down roads. If you heard economists arguing we need immigration in order to expand the economy, were they in the pay of politicians?

So, expanding off earth may not address the problems we have on earth,

True that. Expanding off earth is extinction insurance; it's not a recipe for allowing population growth rates permanently above 0.0%.

given an economy that appears to demand perpetual growth.

Economies don't demand; people demand. It's perfectly rational for us all to want perpetual improvement in standard of living; the way to get it is to perpetually work smarter, not perpetually apply more people to the task.

There are natural limits to growth. Consumption can no more grow in perpetuity than population, Adam Smith, et al.

 

[DBT]

Yet it remains that there are limits to growth. That perpetual growth is an illusion.

arguing for perpetual growth? Yes, there's a good chance we'll never have the technology to expand our species beyond the Local Group of galaxies, which means we're forever limited to the resources of two or three trillion star systems. But whose theories require us to get more than that?

Our politicians and economists tend get quite agitated whenever the economy slows down, yet alone stabilizes. The solution? Boost immigration to stimulate the economy.

Politicians, meh. They tend to be Ponzi scheme artists with a professional incentive to kick cans down roads. If you heard economists arguing we need immigration in order to expand the economy, were they in the pay of politicians?

Yet it is politicians that set policies and determine how society and the economy functions. Policies that effect the way we live, who benefits and inevitably, how the natural world is impacted by our activities.

 

[DBT]

The problem is whether we take action in time to avert catastrophe. I find that unlikely.

What has already occurred is catastrophic.
But younger people will never know it.

A normal reality for each and every new generation, who may hold a certain disdain for old folks who reminisce over better times.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is whether we take action in time to avert catastrophe. I find that unlikely.

What has already occurred is catastrophic.
But younger people will never know it.

What has happened so far is not a major threat to mankind.

The species can survive catastrophes. Including what has already occurred.
A person can survive multiple amputations as well. That doesn’t mean events resulting in amputations are not catastrophic.

We have done nasty things to the ecosystem. So far we haven't done much that's all that bad for humans--which is not to say that if we don't change course there won't be big bad things coming.

 

[DBT]

How much political or economic/business will is there to change course?

 

[Swammerdami]

given an economy that appears to demand perpetual growth.

Economies don't demand; people demand. It's perfectly rational for us all to want perpetual improvement in standard of living; the way to get it is to perpetually work smarter, not perpetually apply more people to the task.

Technological progress is good. But PG shareholders mainly want shampoo sales to increase, whether it's technically better shampoo or not. Thus capital owners want population growth whether that growth is good for humanity or not.

 

[DBT]

How people live and do business is the economy. Without people, there is no economic activity. Business interests demands growth. Politicians cater to business interests and see a lack of growth, not as a stable economy, but stagnation.

 

[bigfield]

How people live and do business is the economy. Without people, there is no economic activity. Business interests demands growth. Politicians cater to business interests and see a lack of growth, not as a stable economy, but stagnation.

A steady-state economy is stagnation.

 

[Jokodo]

given an economy that appears to demand perpetual growth.

Economies don't demand; people demand. It's perfectly rational for us all to want perpetual improvement in standard of living; the way to get it is to perpetually work smarter, not perpetually apply more people to the task.

Technological progress is good. But PG shareholders mainly want shampoo sales to increase, whether it's technically better shampoo or not. Thus capital owners want population growth whether that growth is good for humanity or not.

Off the top of my head, there are at least three ways shampoo sales can go up: more heads needing shampoo, more shampoo being used per head, and people being willing to pay a higher price per unit of shampoo.

Only one of them entails more people, and only two an increased output in terms of raw amount of shampoo being produced.

 

[bilby]

given an economy that appears to demand perpetual growth.

Economies don't demand; people demand. It's perfectly rational for us all to want perpetual improvement in standard of living; the way to get it is to perpetually work smarter, not perpetually apply more people to the task.

Technological progress is good. But PG shareholders mainly want shampoo sales to increase, whether it's technically better shampoo or not. Thus capital owners want population growth whether that growth is good for humanity or not.

Off the top of my head, there are at least three ways shampoo sales can go up: more heads needing shampoo, more shampoo being used per head, and people being willing to pay a higher price per unit of shampoo.

Only one of them entails more people, and only two an increased output in terms of raw amount of shampoo being produced.

Yup. P&G (like most companies) don't measure sales in litres, gallons, kilograms or pounds, they measure sales in dollars.

The shareholders would be ecstatic if the dollar value of shampoo sold went up, while the number of litres sold went down.

 

[Elixir]

So far we haven't done much that's all that bad for humans

WTF?
Are you operating under some kind of delusion that impacts upon our biosphere are felt in "real time"?
Also... how old are you Loren? I see a LOT that is bad for humans that has appeared over the last 50-60 years.
My fear is that while such manifestations are mostly on the order of things about which we say "oh that's a shame" or "too bad", there are effects that are yet to be felt that are more of the "oh shit, we're fucked!" variety.
The HSS species will survive this century and the next, absent extreme volcanism or a major impact event. But I am grateful to have lived prior to most of the environmental degradation that is in process.

 

[Swammerdami]

WHO is technological progress for, anyway? If it's ONLY the progress that's important then what do we need humans for? Let the machines and AIs advance by themselves (when able); catering to humans would just slow them down.

On the other hand, if living beings are crucial why not optimize for tigers, elephants, whales, and even octop{uses,i,odes}?

Or to be more restrictive, admit only Family Hominidae (Great Apes) into the privileged circle?

If only a single species is important, is worth optimizing for, why stop there? Wouldn't it be easier and "better" to optimize for a single ethnic group or nation?

The notion -- implicit in the arguments of the pro-population pro-extinction views on display in these threads -- that policies should cater to EVERY human but NOTHING else, seems parochial.

 

[Swammerdami]

The notion -- implicit in the arguments of the pro-population pro-extinction views on display in these threads -- that policies should cater to EVERY human but NOTHING else, seems parochial.

No, I've not noticed anyone here come out explicitly in favor of the Sixth Great Extinction which human over-population is provoking. But claiming that the high human population is not a problem is to implicitly endorse this Great Extinction.

 

[bigfield]

WHO is technological progress for, anyway? If it's ONLY the progress that's important then what do we need humans for? Let the machines and AIs advance by themselves (when able); catering to humans would just slow them down.

On the other hand, if living beings are crucial why not optimize for tigers, elephants, whales, and even octop{uses,i,odes}?

Or to be more restrictive, admit only Family Hominidae (Great Apes) into the privileged circle?

If only a single species is important, is worth optimizing for, why stop there? Wouldn't it be easier and "better" to optimize for a single ethnic group or nation?

The notion -- implicit in the arguments of the pro-population pro-extinction views on display in these threads -- that policies should cater to EVERY human but NOTHING else, seems parochial.

I want technological progress to improve the lives of myself and my family, including my descendants.

I need humans to form the society in which I live, and to make technological progress. Machines can't do it alone.

Optimising for a single ethnic group or nation makes human society worse.

 

[Elixir]

I want technological progress to improve the lives of myself and my family, including my descendants.

I think everyone wants that.
To some, it would mean a trillion brains in jars, living blissfully in the illusion of experiencing whatsoever they might desire.
To others it would mean getting rid of most of everyone else, that they and their progeny might live as a part of a robust biome.
Different strokes for different folks. Too bad we have but one planet to wrangle over.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So far we haven't done much that's all that bad for humans

WTF?
Are you operating under some kind of delusion that impacts upon our biosphere are felt in "real time"?
Also... how old are you Loren? I see a LOT that is bad for humans that has appeared over the last 50-60 years.
My fear is that while such manifestations are mostly on the order of things about which we say "oh that's a shame" or "too bad", there are effects that are yet to be felt that are more of the "oh shit, we're fucked!" variety.
The HSS species will survive this century and the next, absent extreme volcanism or a major impact event. But I am grateful to have lived prior to most of the environmental degradation that is in process.

You're missing the point. There isn't a lot of suffering yet. Thus people do not feel a serious need to do something about it and engage in can-kicking. That is not to say that we will be able to do something about it in time once we do reach the point of a lot of pain.

 

[Elixir]

There isn't a lot of suffering yet.

“A lot” meaning “enough to get Joe Sixpack off the couch to do something about it”?
Joe Sixpack will die in front of his FOX tuned TV long before things get to that point. You’re talking about an end result of past and current actions that won’t be felt in full for decades. The suffering will not even be acknowledged until it’s way too late to mitigate it.
I bet you don’t miss the menhaden*, do you?
Which animal do you miss most, among the estimated 500 or so vertebrate species that have gone extinct since 1900? (This is up to 50x the”normal” background rate of extinction)
You probably don’t suffer a bit from those losses, right?

* menhaden are not extinct (and probably won’t be) but have been so decimated by humans that numerous other species that depended on them are in peril, if not gone.

 

[Bomb#20]

given an economy that appears to demand perpetual growth.

Economies don't demand; people demand. It's perfectly rational for us all to want perpetual improvement in standard of living; the way to get it is to perpetually work smarter, not perpetually apply more people to the task.

Technological progress is good. But PG shareholders mainly want shampoo sales to increase, whether it's technically better shampoo or not. Thus capital owners want population growth whether that growth is good for humanity or not.

Broad-brush much? We have the same wide range of wants and opinions as anybody else. Sure I want sales to increase, but I also want there still to be polar bears, and the one want doesn't magically overpower the other.

Off the top of my head, there are at least three ways shampoo sales can go up: more heads needing shampoo, more shampoo being used per head, and people being willing to pay a higher price per unit of shampoo.

Only one of them entails more people, and only two an increased output in terms of raw amount of shampoo being produced.

Yup. P&G (like most companies) don't measure sales in litres, gallons, kilograms or pounds, they measure sales in dollars.

The shareholders would be ecstatic if the dollar value of shampoo sold went up, while the number of litres sold went down.

So you're saying we like inflation? Methinks you need to show your work on that one...

 

[DBT]

How people live and do business is the economy. Without people, there is no economic activity. Business interests demands growth. Politicians cater to business interests and see a lack of growth, not as a stable economy, but stagnation.

A steady-state economy is stagnation.

Stability in population numbers and resource use is not necessarily stagnation, whereprogress in science may be open ended. There is no reason why a stable population cannot provide a good quality of life for all its citizens, including allocated funding for research and development. That is not stagnation.