Over population derail from "Humans as non-animals"

[steve_bank]

Looking at the world everyday on TV does anyone think population can continue to grow without limit?

 

[Politesse]

Looking at the world everyday on TV does anyone think population can continue to grow without limit?

The question isn't whether it can, but whether it will. The myth of exponential, uncontrolled growth is the part of the Malthusian paradigm that does not stand up to empirical scrutiny.

 

[DBT]

Lifestyle being as important as population numbers, there could be a huge problem of unsustainability if 9 -10 billion people become consumers on the scale of people enjoying rich western lifestyles....which those who are on the sidelines have every right to aspire to.

 

[Politesse]

Lifestyle being as important as population numbers, there could be a huge problem of unsustainability if 9 -10 billion people become consumers on the scale of people enjoying rich western lifestyles....which those who are on the sidelines have every right to aspire to.

If everyone had an affluent lifestyle, there would be no threat of reaching a population of 10 billion, as we know for a fact that birth rate and wealth are negatively correlated in all known global communities regardless of culture. But I am not sure I would agree that everyone has a "right" to the unrestrained, ecologically unconscious lifestyle of the very wealthy. If we wish to increase the wellbeing of global citizens, I think this is entirely possible to do, but certain behaviors characteristic of the "West" are things even they should not be doing, let alone everyone. Petroleum-dependent economies, use of fresh water to maintain pesticide-soaked lawns, use of kill genes to drive up the price of healthy agricultural products, etc, are bad practices, and no one should be encouraged in them. On the other hand, if the question is whether, say, everyone should have indoor plumbing and electricity in their homes, I see no reason why such "luxuries" should be impossible for most people to acquire, provided that growth in infrastructure were reasonably well planned.

 

[steve_bank]

Economics wise covid shows here in the USA we are beyond sustainability. Increasing numbers at the margins living day to day. Employed but working poor. Any downturn and they are in trouble.

 

[fromderinside]

steve_bank you are playing on at the margins as an argument for the notion that overpopulation can lead to extinction. The margins will exist no matter what the species, but the capacity to increase carrying capacity to defeat any kind or capacity violation rests with few species like humans.

 

[bilby]

Looking at the world everyday on TV does anyone think population can continue to grow without limit?

Looking at actual population figures over the last seventy years, does anyone think population WILL continue to grow without limit?

 

[DBT]

Lifestyle being as important as population numbers, there could be a huge problem of unsustainability if 9 -10 billion people become consumers on the scale of people enjoying rich western lifestyles....which those who are on the sidelines have every right to aspire to.

If everyone had an affluent lifestyle, there would be no threat of reaching a population of 10 billion, as we know for a fact that birth rate and wealth are negatively correlated in all known global communities regardless of culture. But I am not sure I would agree that everyone has a "right" to the unrestrained, ecologically unconscious lifestyle of the very wealthy. If we wish to increase the wellbeing of global citizens, I think this is entirely possible to do, but certain behaviors characteristic of the "West" are things even they should not be doing, let alone everyone. Petroleum-dependent economies, use of fresh water to maintain pesticide-soaked lawns, use of kill genes to drive up the price of healthy agricultural products, etc, are bad practices, and no one should be encouraged in them. On the other hand, if the question is whether, say, everyone should have indoor plumbing and electricity in their homes, I see no reason why such "luxuries" should be impossible for most people to acquire, provided that growth in infrastructure were reasonably well planned.

If we assume that we have the right to live the way we do, then the same assumed right cannot be denied to those who seek the same standard of living. Which doesn't make consumerism a good thing to aspire to, only that it is the path we are on, which those on the sidelines see and aspire to achieve for themselves.

 

[Politesse]

Lifestyle being as important as population numbers, there could be a huge problem of unsustainability if 9 -10 billion people become consumers on the scale of people enjoying rich western lifestyles....which those who are on the sidelines have every right to aspire to.

If everyone had an affluent lifestyle, there would be no threat of reaching a population of 10 billion, as we know for a fact that birth rate and wealth are negatively correlated in all known global communities regardless of culture. But I am not sure I would agree that everyone has a "right" to the unrestrained, ecologically unconscious lifestyle of the very wealthy. If we wish to increase the wellbeing of global citizens, I think this is entirely possible to do, but certain behaviors characteristic of the "West" are things even they should not be doing, let alone everyone. Petroleum-dependent economies, use of fresh water to maintain pesticide-soaked lawns, use of kill genes to drive up the price of healthy agricultural products, etc, are bad practices, and no one should be encouraged in them. On the other hand, if the question is whether, say, everyone should have indoor plumbing and electricity in their homes, I see no reason why such "luxuries" should be impossible for most people to acquire, provided that growth in infrastructure were reasonably well planned.

If we assume that we have the right to live the way we do, then the same assumed right cannot be denied to those who seek the same standard of living. Which doesn't make consumerism a good thing to aspire to, only that it is the path we are on, which those on the sidelines see and aspire to achieve for themselves.

You see, the problem here is that I do see environmental degradation and resource shortages as a dire threat to our communal global existence. I just don't blame the poor underclasses of the global south for that threat. Overpopulation is a red herring.In truth, it is a very small set of people who threaten the survival of this planet with their greed and apathy. And I do not have much sympathy for their prerogatives.

I claim no right for myself that I would not happily extend to all human beings. I do not assume as you say. I think we all need to learn to live more sustainably, and I think this is more than possible.

But not if everyone (or anyone) has three cars in their garage.

 

[DBT]

If we assume that we have the right to live the way we do, then the same assumed right cannot be denied to those who seek the same standard of living. Which doesn't make consumerism a good thing to aspire to, only that it is the path we are on, which those on the sidelines see and aspire to achieve for themselves.

You see, the problem here is that I do see environmental degradation and resource shortages as a dire threat to our communal global existence. I just don't blame the poor underclasses of the global south for that threat. Overpopulation is a red herring.In truth, it is a very small set of people who threaten the survival of this planet with their greed and apathy. And I do not have much sympathy for their prerogatives.

I claim no right for myself that I would not happily extend to all human beings. I do not assume as you say. I think we all need to learn to live more sustainably, and I think this is more than possible.

But not if everyone (or anyone) has three cars in their garage.

I don't disagree with you that we should learn to live more sustainably. It is essential that we do.....now tell it to the marketeers and big business interests.

 

[Politesse]

If we assume that we have the right to live the way we do, then the same assumed right cannot be denied to those who seek the same standard of living. Which doesn't make consumerism a good thing to aspire to, only that it is the path we are on, which those on the sidelines see and aspire to achieve for themselves.

You see, the problem here is that I do see environmental degradation and resource shortages as a dire threat to our communal global existence. I just don't blame the poor underclasses of the global south for that threat. Overpopulation is a red herring.In truth, it is a very small set of people who threaten the survival of this planet with their greed and apathy. And I do not have much sympathy for their prerogatives.

I claim no right for myself that I would not happily extend to all human beings. I do not assume as you say. I think we all need to learn to live more sustainably, and I think this is more than possible.

But not if everyone (or anyone) has three cars in their garage.

I don't disagree with you that we should learn to live more sustainably. It is essential that we do.....now tell it to the marketeers and big business interests.

And that's who we need to put pressure on. Not poverty-stricken families in Niger, Angola, and Mali.

 

[Swammerdami]

Some TFTers continue to underestimate the consequences of human overpopulation. We are ALREADY suffering huge degradation of habitat and loss of biodiversity. These are NOT concerns about what will happen if the human population stays at ten billion for centuries; they are already problems. (And I agree with Politesse's example: Monsanto's biological warfare against natural plants in order to increase profits from sales of its "Frankenstein crops" is almost a self-caricature of the huge mistakes H. sapiens is making.)

And some in the thread HUGELY overestimate the ratio of damage caused by rich versus poor. Fertilizers are used all over the world, and are a major concern, both in terms of the increasing cost of mining phosphate, and in the environmental consequences of washed-away fertilizer. Deforestation is an environmental problem; it happens in developing countries. Depletion of fresh water is also a major problem, and concerns several poor countries.

The HUGE cost (not limited to habitat destruction) of eating beef is associated with rich countries, but billionaires do NOT consume hugely more beef than average Americans! ... And poor people in poor countries aspire to eat beef also.

Yes, Man is clever. Beef substitutes are being developed. But to assume that man will find technological workarounds for all the problems of overpopulation is much too Pollyannish. Trivial partial solutions seem to be beyond the reach of America. Mention a 50¢ per gallon tax on gasoline, and Americans will squeal like you're trying to castrate them.

 

[Tigers!]

Anyway, I'd still like the proponents of overpopulation to answer my Hypothetical Question: If the choice is between a world of 10 billion happy humans and a world with 5 billion happy humans, is it fair to say the former has a humanity that's twice as happy?

I would certainly be twice as happy in a world of 5 billon and opposed to 10 billion but only if we get to said 5 billon by eliminating those who think that people should be culled.

 

[Tigers!]

If we assume that we have the right to live the way we do, then the same assumed right cannot be denied to those who seek the same standard of living. Which doesn't make consumerism a good thing to aspire to, only that it is the path we are on, which those on the sidelines see and aspire to achieve for themselves.

You see, the problem here is that I do see environmental degradation and resource shortages as a dire threat to our communal global existence. I just don't blame the poor underclasses of the global south for that threat. Overpopulation is a red herring.In truth, it is a very small set of people who threaten the survival of this planet with their greed and apathy. And I do not have much sympathy for their prerogatives.

I claim no right for myself that I would not happily extend to all human beings. I do not assume as you say. I think we all need to learn to live more sustainably, and I think this is more than possible.

But not if everyone (or anyone) has three cars in their garage.

I don't disagree with you that we should learn to live more sustainably. It is essential that we do.....now tell it to the marketeers and big business interests.

But you do not have to listen to the marketeers and big business interests. They only have as much power as ee give them.

 

[DBT]

I don't disagree with you that we should learn to live more sustainably. It is essential that we do.....now tell it to the marketeers and big business interests.

But you do not have to listen to the marketeers and big business interests. They only have as much power as ee give them.

Yet many people do swallow the big business economic model of consumerism and perpetual growth, including governments and policy makers.....buy, invest, collect toys, spend...

 

[repoman]

The leftists being over population deniers at the same level as American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation is rather interesting.

 

[skepticalbip]

Anyway, I'd still like the proponents of overpopulation to answer my Hypothetical Question: If the choice is between a world of 10 billion happy humans and a world with 5 billion happy humans, is it fair to say the former has a humanity that's twice as happy?

I would certainly be twice as happy in a world of 5 billon and opposed to 10 billion but only if we get to said 5 billon by eliminating those who think that people should be culled.

Is this a suggestion that the way of reducing population should be by culling out those who think that people should be culled?

Just damned, another irony meter blown.

 

[steve_bank]

steve_bank you are playing on at the margins as an argument for the notion that overpopulation can lead to extinction. The margins will exist no matter what the species, but the capacity to increase carrying capacity to defeat any kind or capacity violation rests with few species like humans.

I did not say extinction. Loking at civikization as a system I expect a large scale population decline in the future.

We say catastrophic collapse in China ubder Mao leading to mass starvation.

The estimate that in coming times width climate change we will no longer be a net food exporter.

The md west aquifer is drawing down. California without drought has a water problem.

It is only a matter of time.

Humans will survive, our system will not. As evidenced by Congress we are unabe to deal withmajor problems.

Biden resends Trump immigration policy. Now the media is outraged that we are unable to deal with a rising number of unaccompanied kids on the border. Cognitive dissonance.

Western civilization is not manageable by the current paradigms.

That is why China is on the rise. As much as we dislike Chinese policy they are getting things done.

 

[bilby]

steve_bank you are playing on at the margins as an argument for the notion that overpopulation can lead to extinction. The margins will exist no matter what the species, but the capacity to increase carrying capacity to defeat any kind or capacity violation rests with few species like humans.

I did not say extinction. Loking at civikization as a system I expect a large scale population decline in the future.

We say catastrophic collapse in China ubder Mao leading to mass starvation.

The estimate that in coming times width climate change we will no longer be a net food exporter.

The md west aquifer is drawing down. California without drought has a water problem.

It is only a matter of time.

Humans will survive, our system will not. As evidenced by Congress we are unabe to deal withmajor problems.

Biden resends Trump immigration policy. Now the media is outraged that we are unable to deal with a rising number of unaccompanied kids on the border. Cognitive dissonance.

Western civilization is not manageable by the current paradigms.

That is why China is on the rise. As much as we dislike Chinese policy they are getting things done.

Famine had very little impact on total Chinese population in the C20th. In 1950, China had a population of around 550 million; despite ~50 million famine deaths and ~30 million deferred births during the Great Leap Forward, by 1975 the population had risen to 921 million.

War, famine, and disease have had very little influence on population numbers since world population reached the billion person mark. Even major death events simply couldn't compete with the high birthrates of the first eighty years of the twentieth century.

Voluntary reductions in birthrates since then have, however, been effective in bringing population growth under control.