Over population derail from "Humans as non-animals"

[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.

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?

No. I am talking about value, so obviously their objective is an increase in inflation adjusted dollar value.

Ceteris paribus is implied by most arguments; pretending that it isn't is rarely a good counterargument.

If I said I was hoping for a few more dollars in my paypacket, would you think I was hoping for high inflation?

The trope of the demon or genie that grants wishes but that makes every possible effort to subvert the intent of the person making the wish, is moderately amusing, but the demon isn't the hero of those tales.

 

[bilby]

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.

No it's not. It's economic growth. Which you claim to believe cannot continue indefinitely in such circumstances.

The objective is a stable population (which has basically been achieved); Stable resource use (which we are working on - it means careful management and recycling, without externalisation of costs to the wider environment); and indefinite economic growth (which does not need to conflict with either of the former).

 

[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.

No it's not. It's economic growth. Which you claim to believe cannot continue indefinitely in such circumstances.

The objective is a stable population (which has basically been achieved); Stable resource use (which we are working on - it means careful management and recycling, without externalisation of costs to the wider environment); and indefinite economic growth (which does not need to conflict with either of the former).

Not really, research and development doesn't necessarily lead to higher consumption of natural resources or population growth. The opposite may happen, advances in technology may increase efficiency and do away with wasteful practices.


Not to mention how much the world spends on weapons and war.

 

[bilby]

WHO is technological progress for, anyway?

Humans.

The desires of humans are highly variable; But they should be catered to, where doing so has minimal adverse effects on the desires of other humans.

If a woman wants to have an active sex life, but to have control over how many children result, she should be allowed to do that.

If I want to be able to travel from Brisbane to London in a few hours, I should be allowed to do that.

If the people of London want access to drinking water that doesn't kill them by causing uncontrollable diarrhea, they should be allowed to have that.

If anyone wants to have arguments, discussions and debates in real-time with people on other continents, they should be allowed to do that.

But none of these things would be possible without technological progress. And there are plenty of things that are still desired, but not yet possible; So further progress is needed.

If Elon Musk wants to fuck off to Mars and never ever return, he should be actively encouraged to do so as soon as fucking possible.

 

[steve_bank]

The problem isn't population. The problem is we have a bunch of rich fucks exploiting resources and destroying the environment. As well as meddling in politics.

How many electronic devices do you have? Robot floor sweepers? Do you use heaters and air conditioners? Drive a car? Video games? Take trips on commercial jets? Buy tngs yiu don;t need?

We are all in it, the 'rich' are only a small part of it.

 

[bilby]

How many electronic devices do you have? Robot floor sweepers? Do you use heaters and air conditioners? Drive a car? Video games? Take trips on commercial jets? Buy tngs yiu don;t need?

We are all in it, the 'rich' are only a small part of it.

LOL. The rich are us. Most people alive today do NOT have robot floor sweepers, heating and airconditioning, cars, video games, or the resources to ever take a commercial flight.

The poor people in today's world dream of having a bicycle. Some dream of having shoes. Owning a car, or even having a friend or relative who owns a car, is unimaginable to a huge fraction of humanity.

They mostly don't live in the USA, don't visit other countries, and don't have Internet access, so you won't hear from them. But they do exist. And they are the main contributors to population growth, illustrating (yet again) that population is not the problem here.

Over 70% of people in the DRC have no internet access. Less than 0.5% of Somalis own a car.

The problem is indeed the rich; We just don't think of ourselves as belonging to that group. But this is a discussion about population. Comparative to the world population, just being able to access this forum identifies a user as "rich".

 

[DBT]

"A steady-state economy is not to be confused with economic stagnation: Whereas a steady-state economy is established as the result of deliberate political action, economic stagnation is the unexpected and unwelcome failure of a growth economy."

Steady-state economy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[bigfield]

"A steady-state economy is not to be confused with economic stagnation: Whereas a steady-state economy is established as the result of deliberate political action, economic stagnation is the unexpected and unwelcome failure of a growth economy."

Steady-state economy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Makes perfect sense.

Stagnation: unintentional stagnation.
Steady state: intentional stagnation.

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

No. I am talking about value, so obviously their objective is an increase in inflation adjusted dollar value.

Ceteris paribus is implied by most arguments; pretending that it isn't is rarely a good counterargument.

If I said I was hoping for a few more dollars in my paypacket, would you think I was hoping for high inflation?

The trope of the demon or genie that grants wishes but that makes every possible effort to subvert the intent of the person making the wish, is moderately amusing, but the demon isn't the hero of those tales.

Normally when the dollar value goes up while the number of liters sold goes down, it's because of inflation. If the inflation-adjusted dollar value goes up the price must be going up, which normally means you're moving right on the supply-and-demand chart, which means the number of liters sold goes up. But you specified it's going down, so you're moving left on the supply-and-demand chart. If the equilibrium quantity goes down while the price goes up that means the crossover point has moved off the supply curve, at least off the original supply curve. Which is to say, the supply curve itself is moving left -- the amount suppliers are willing to produce at a given price point goes down. What suppliers are willing to produce is the amount that maximizes profit. If the price exceeds costs there's profit to be made by increasing supply; consequently the supply curve is a graph of the supplier's manufacturing and distribution costs. So a situation where the inflation-adjusted dollar value of shampoo sold went up while the number of liters sold went down is normally a situation where the supplier's costs went up. As a rule we aren't ecstatic when that happens, so I take it that's not what you had in mind. So what's your scenario? If customers are willing to pay a higher price but it doesn't cost us more to produce, why aren't we reacting by making more shampoo?

(Incidentally, inflation adjusted dollar value simply means dollar value relative to the rest of a basket of goods and services. So saying we're ecstatic when shampoo gets more expensive is the same as saying we're ecstatic when something else gets cheaper. What is it in that basket of goods and services that you're saying we want the price of to fall? We're Procter & Gamble! We make everything. )

 

[bilby]

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?

No. I am talking about value, so obviously their objective is an increase in inflation adjusted dollar value.

Ceteris paribus is implied by most arguments; pretending that it isn't is rarely a good counterargument.

If I said I was hoping for a few more dollars in my paypacket, would you think I was hoping for high inflation?

The trope of the demon or genie that grants wishes but that makes every possible effort to subvert the intent of the person making the wish, is moderately amusing, but the demon isn't the hero of those tales.

Normally when the dollar value goes up while the number of liters sold goes down, it's because of inflation. If the inflation-adjusted dollar value goes up the price must be going up, which normally means you're moving right on the supply-and-demand chart, which means the number of liters sold goes up. But you specified it's going down, so you're moving left on the supply-and-demand chart. If the equilibrium quantity goes down while the price goes up that means the crossover point has moved off the supply curve, at least off the original supply curve. Which is to say, the supply curve itself is moving left -- the amount suppliers are willing to produce at a given price point goes down. What suppliers are willing to produce is the amount that maximizes profit. If the price exceeds costs there's profit to be made by increasing supply; consequently the supply curve is a graph of the supplier's manufacturing and distribution costs. So a situation where the inflation-adjusted dollar value of shampoo sold went up while the number of liters sold went down is normally a situation where the supplier's costs went up. As a rule we aren't ecstatic when that happens, so I take it that's not what you had in mind. So what's your scenario? If customers are willing to pay a higher price but it doesn't cost us more to produce, why aren't we reacting by making more shampoo?

You appear to have overlooked the word "if". I am not suggesting that ir's likely to occur, but if it did, the shareholders would be ecstatic. They are buying less raw material (at the same prices), and getting more income - so profits are up.

(Incidentally, inflation adjusted dollar value simply means dollar value relative to the rest of a basket of goods and services. So saying we're ecstatic when shampoo gets more expensive is the same as saying we're ecstatic when something else gets cheaper. What is it in that basket of goods and services that you're saying we want the price of to fall? We're Procter & Gamble! We make everything. )

I am pretty sure they don't make everything. Or even a substantial fraction of thing.

 

[Jokodo]

Comparative to the world population, just being able to access this forum identifies a user as "rich".

That's a very liberal definition of rich. According to latest world bank data, around 2/3 of the world's population, including between 3/4 and 4/5 in what they call "Easy Asia and Pacific (excluding high income)" which I guess means Tonga, Laos, India and China but not not Japan, Australia or Brunei, use the Internet.

Internet users may still be a minority in the DRC, but they are majority in places like Thailand(90%) or Morocco(90%) or Bolivia(70%). Methinks classifying an average Thai, Moroccan or Bolivian as rich is misleading.

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

 

[Elixir]

LOL. The rich are us.

I agree, Jokodo’s point notwithstanding.
“Us” may not mean an actual majority of all humans, but it’s not isolated to a few hundred thousand “rich” people indulging in wretched excess. There are billions of “us”, and “we” ARE the problem.

 

[steve_bank]

Manufacturing efficiencies have long gotten us past where the majority of workers work on essential items.

It is now the consumer economy, large scale production of things we do not need. That is why pop[ulation has to increase to support economic growth. It is why Russia, China, Japan, ans South Korea hare heading for problems with population decline.

Your IRA invests in the economy banking on in 30 or 40 years the economy will be greater than today.

We are not all 'rich', but we all consume on a scale that did not exist when I was born.

In the 80s I took a tour of a Budweiser brewery. Almost completely automated running 24/7. Making beer on an industrial scale consumes a lot of water, electricity, and grain.

Everyone has a car. Milions of people fly. The majority are not rich in dollar value, but we consue as was once the relm of the upscale.

 

[Bomb#20]

So what's your scenario? If customers are willing to pay a higher price but it doesn't cost us more to produce, why aren't we reacting by making more shampoo?

You appear to have overlooked the word "if". I am not suggesting that ir's likely to occur, but if it did, the shareholders would be ecstatic. They are buying less raw material (at the same prices), and getting more income - so profits are up.

You appear to have overlooked how counterfactuals work. The word "if" doesn't refer to one particular alternate reality; it refers to all of them with a given difference. In some the shareholders are ecstatic about buying less raw material and getting more income; in some they aren't. "If" they are buying less raw material at the same prices and getting more income, and dollars aren't smaller, there must be a reason for it. The obvious reason is that some other factor of production costs more -- presumably labor costs, or rent, or debt servicing, or taxes -- so we wouldn't be ecstatic about it. "If" production is down and prices are up but no costs have gone up, so profits are up, why aren't we increasing production? Yes, I get that capitalists think like cartoon characters in anticapitalists' imaginations and this informs all you guys' economic reasoning, but don't your cartoon capitalists want their profits to be up even more?

Heinlein's novels have a "future history" in which America falls under a totalitarian dictatorship. It would be better "if" the dictator had never been born, right? So in one of the novels a time-traveler goes back and slips the dictator's father a condom just before he knocks up the mother. Of course in the story consequently democracy survives, the politicians don't turn America isolationist, and when nuclear war breaks out America isn't a neutral country and gets turned to glass with the rest of the world. It matters which alternate reality an "if" takes us to.

 

[Elixir]

The obvious reason is that some other factor of production costs more -- presumably labor costs, or rent, or debt servicing, or taxes -- so we wouldn't be ecstatic about it. "If" production is down and prices are up but no costs have gone up, so profits are up, why aren't we increasing production?

Not a foregone conclusion that production costs have increased or that increasing production is advisable. Perhaps product demand is down, driving a change in the competitive landscape, which is keeping prices up as competitors succumb to low demand.

 

[DBT]

"A steady-state economy is not to be confused with economic stagnation: Whereas a steady-state economy is established as the result of deliberate political action, economic stagnation is the unexpected and unwelcome failure of a growth economy."

Steady-state economy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Makes perfect sense.

Stagnation: unintentional stagnation.
Steady state: intentional stagnation.

Living well isn't stagnation. Living sustainably is not stagnation. Perpetual growth is not sustainable. To carry on regardless is unsustainable and stupid, and given that at some point growth must end.....then what?

 

[bilby]

That's a very liberal definition of rich.

It's a whole population perspective.

Which is the only valid perspective, when the topic is population.

 

[bilby]

"If" they are buying less raw material at the same prices and getting more income, and dollars aren't smaller, there must be a reason for it.

Well, in real reality, P&G employ a small army of sales staff whose main objective is to increase the number of dollars that P&G take in each quarter from their customers; And they also employ a rather smaller army of production managers and research staff whose main objective is to reduce the cost of making the goods that they sell.

Presumably the board (on behalf of the shareholders) employ these folks because they want them to succeed in those objectives.

 

[steve_bank]

The problem with a steady state economy is how to make it work in practical terms with real people.

How do you control population? A fixed population size means goods and services produced are fixed, and decions have to mad as to what and how uch gets produced.

The thing about the free market entrepreneurial economy as we have it is that it runs on its own in accordance with supply and demand.

Soviet and Chinese experiments in centralized planning and control of economies failed.

 

[bilby]

The problem with a steady state economy is how to make it work in practical terms with real people.

The English economy between about 1200 and 1500CE was pretty close to a steady state, with occasional hiccups due to pandemics and famines.

In that society, opportunities for improving ones lot were few and far between. Every son expected to live the same life as his father, doing the same job, in the same way, and deferring to the same hierarchy. Unless he died young; Or ran away to join the army or the priesthood.

There is a reason why when people describe a modern country as 'medieval', this is not a complement.