Over population derail from "Humans as non-animals"

[bilby]

We should be smart enough to provide for all the needs and wants of a population of 500 million to a billion, including scientific research.

We should be smart enough to provide for all the needs and wants of a population of ten or eleven billion, including scientific research.

We cause environmental damage, not because we are too numerous to avoid doing so, but because we are lazy and greedy, and don't see any particular need to avoid doing so.

That laziness, greed, and shortsightedness would be worse if the population were smaller, if only because it would be easier to ignore and/or walk away from our messes. And that's no hypothetical - when population was smaller, that's exactly what happened.

It's unavoidable that ten people are going to need and use more resources that two.

I will pit a Tanzanian subsistance farmer, his wife, and their eight children, against any US billionaire. I won't even need two billionaires to MASSIVELY out use the resources of my ten Tanzanians. Just with one, it ain't even close.

Which is my entire point; looking at population as though it were a problem requires the obviously and utterly false premise that "a person" is (at least approximately) a constant unit of consumption (or of environmental degredation).

It's unavoidable that ten people are going to need and use FEWER resources than just two, if we pick the right (or wrong) people.

 

[bilby]

"Hey, let's cram as many people as we can onto the planet."

... said literally nobody, ever.

Not said, but done regardless. Business as usual, Which is why we are in this predicament now.

Again, not true. Business as usual is for women to have family sizes too small to grow the population, when they are given a choice in the matter.

And it's not established that we are in the predicament you are implying. The world is not "overpopulated", in any way you have yet demonstrated.

 

[bilby]

"Hey, let's cram as many people as we can onto the planet."

... said literally nobody, ever.

Not said, but done regardless. Business as usual, Which is why we are in this predicament now.

We were in a predicament in about the late 1960s.
We are now in the middle of the dickament.

I disagree. The widespread availabity of contraception that is safe, in the control of women, and which requires no action "in the heat of the moment", has placed us firmly into a postdicament world.

 

[unapologetic]

If the richest billion were the only humans, human life would be great,

No it wouldn't. They would be miserable. Who would do the work for them? Who would build the robots?
I am not suggesting rich people are lazy. I am saying they don't have survival skills for a depopulated world. Their skill set is management. Manipulating PEOPLE. Not actual production. You would eliminate their tools (other people, and needy). They would be helpless.
Not to mention hyperinflation sucking up all their riches.
The ideal one billion population would be somewhere in the middle.

I think 6 billion would be ideal. What we had when I was a kid. But I admit I haven't put much thought into it.

 

[Elixir]

We should be smart enough to provide for all the needs and wants of a population of ten or eleven billion, including scientific research.

We should be able to do all that and more.
In fact “we” are able if “we” are in agreement that we should do that.
All we need is a unified vision with everyone behind it. We must join the Borg.

 

[Elixir]

If the richest billion were the only humans, human life would be great,

No it wouldn't. They would be miserable. Who would do the work for them? Who would build the robots?
I am not suggesting rich people are lazy. I am saying they don't have survival skills for a depopulated world. Their skill set is management. Manipulating PEOPLE. Not actual production. You would eliminate their tools (other people, and needy). They would be helpless.
Not to mention hyperinflation sucking up all their riches.
The ideal one billion population would be somewhere in the middle.

I think 6 billion would be ideal. What we had when I was a kid. But I admit I haven't put much thought into it.

Under 3 billion was nice. Nothing was broken and there was not even much suspicion that people could be a problem. Malthusian population theory was debunked and global climate change was about all that coal they used in the 1800s.
Species were disappearing at 3-4 times the expected background rate rather than at today’s 50x.
I think 3 billion could maintain a technological base, sustain human genetic diversity and provide plenty for everybody without wrecking stuff like the climate and biodiversity. .
If they would just stop wrecking stuff all the time: it’s why we can’t have nice things.

 

[WAB]

Jesus! The world is doing fine with all of these people on it. Lets all go in a tIme capsule back to the year 1000, how good would we be doing? Bilbyy is right and has been right all along.

 

[DBT]

"Hey, let's cram as many people as we can onto the planet."

... said literally nobody, ever.

Not said, but done regardless. Business as usual, Which is why we are in this predicament now.

We were in a predicament in about the late 1960s.
We are now in the middle of the dickament.

I disagree. The widespread availabity of contraception that is safe, in the control of women, and which requires no action "in the heat of the moment", has placed us firmly into a postdicament world.

It's still early days. How we do in the long term is the question, which is something that will probably become far more evident in the coming decades

 

[TV and credit cards]

But does a billion-aire really use one million times as much plastic as a thousand-aire? Seems unlikely.

It’s not their personal use that focuses such blame on billionaires. It’s the plastic produced and discarded in the process of making them billionaires, which is hard to quantify but it’s a lot.

You say that as though the "process of making them billionaires" were a process chosen by society for the purpose of making them billionaires, with the primary effects of making them billionaires and producing waste. It doesn't work that way. Billionaires became billionaires by getting paid for having provided other people with over a billion dollars worth of goods and services. The microplastics come from the plastic produced and discarded in the process of making thousands of dollars worth of goods and services for each of millions of people; it will continue with or without the billionaires as long as there are millions of people receiving thousands of dollars worth of goods and services each who aren't collectively willing to pay to police their waste streams. So if you're thinking to solve pollution by reducing billionaires, does your solution involve reducing the goods and services millions of people receive? If it doesn't, show your work. If it does, sounds like an overpopulation problem, not a billionaire problem.

So, people want to purchase their pile of plastic crap and who provides it is hardly relevant. Is this an accurate summation of your post? If so, read on.

You propose that billions of people should take some responsibility where one, say, Jeff Bezos could have made such change? This one smart and ambitious man who should have considered the waste stream he created not only at his point in the supply chain but at the customer's end as well. No. I do put this responsibility on this one smart person. And if we ever do "quantify" the plastic/microplastic a person generates, I think the unit of measure should be the bezos.
Amazon under Jeff Bezos was in such a position of power in the retail world that he could have forced innovation within the packaging industry, both in shipping and in manufacturer's packaging. Government could help by at least curtailing wanton consumerism, the consumerism down at the Amazon/Walmart level where most of what is purchased is manufactured to be discarded in short order. There are times when people need to be governed. This was and is one of those times.

But what do we have? Billionaires who place all the burden of responsible behavior on the demand side and a government that tells us to make more babies, aka taxpayers.

 

[Elixir]

I won't even need two billionaires to MASSIVELY out use the resources of my ten Tanzanians. Just with one, it ain't even close.

There are only some 600 billionaires in America. Our peons outnumber them not ten to one but closer to a half million to one.

The world is doing fine

Not In terms of human habitability, diversity of species or stability of climate.

 

[steve_bank]

All we need to solve our problems is for congress on all sides to be smart, make nice with each other, and work together.

 

[Politesse]

I won't even need two billionaires to MASSIVELY out use the resources of my ten Tanzanians. Just with one, it ain't even close.

There are only some 600 billionaires in America. Our peons outnumber them not ten to one but closer to a half million to one.

The world is doing fine

Not In terms of human habitability, diversity of species or stability of climate.

Compared to 1025 CE? I'd say that depends a lot on where you pointed the camera.

 

[Elixir]

Compared to 1025 CE? I'd say that depends a lot on where you pointed the camera.

Wide angle lens, Poli.
The human population of earth in 1025 is estimated to have been around 300 million.
Atmospheric concentration of CO2 was about 280 ppm.
Re diversity, AI had this to say (not going to look up each item elsewhere so AI could be out to lunch, but some footnotes are given):

Estimating the exact number of species lost due to human activity since 1025 CE is challenging due to incomplete historical records and ongoing discoveries of new species. However, several studies provide insights into the scale of biodiversity loss:

1. Vertebrates: Since 1500 CE, at least 711 vertebrates (including 181 birds, 113 mammals, and 171 amphibians) are known or presumed extinct5. This timeframe is closer to the period in question, but it does not directly address the period from 1025 to 1500 CE.
2. Invertebrates and Plants: There have been almost 600 documented extinctions of invertebrates and plants since 1500 CE, but the true number is likely much higher due to limited data5.
3. General Trends: Human activities such as habitat destruction, hunting, and climate change have been significant drivers of extinctions. These activities have intensified over the past few centuries, especially since the Industrial Revolution13.
4. Historical Context: Human impacts on biodiversity began to significantly increase as modern humans migrated and settled new areas, leading to waves of extinctions, particularly of megafauna5. However, detailed records for the period from 1025 to 1500 CE are scarce.

Given these considerations, while we cannot provide a precise number for the period from 1025 to 1500 CE, it is clear that human activities have been a major driver of species extinctions over the past few centuries, with significant impacts accelerating in recent times.

On climate stability:

Since the Industrial Revolution, human activities have significantly impacted the climate, leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. This has resulted in a less stable climate, with more frequent and intense extreme weather events. ... The climate is becoming less stable due to ongoing global warming, which is projected to continue unless drastic measures are taken to reduce emissions and mitigate climate change impacts ... while there were periods of relative stability in the past, the global climate has become less stable since the Industrial Revolution due to human activities.

Did I miss anything? Is there somewhere else I should have "pointed the camera" and if so what is THAT picture?
Come on, Poli - give me something. I need cheering up.

 

[Bomb#20]

There are only some 600 billionaires in America. Our peons outnumber them not ten to one but closer to a half million to one.

You need a billion dollars in order to not be a peon?

The world is doing fine

Not In terms of human habitability, diversity of species or stability of climate.

You appear to be obviously correct about species and climate, and obviously incorrect about human habitability. I think the latter is the one Politesse was on about.

Compared to 1025 CE? I'd say that depends a lot on where you pointed the camera.

Wide angle lens, Poli.
The human population of earth in 1025 is estimated to have been around 300 million.

Yeah, that's not because in 1025 people were choosing to have two surviving children per woman. That's because the earth's carrying capacity for humans was 300 million back then. We can debate whether it's more or less than 8 billion today, but it's pretty obviously more than 300 million. Human habitability has evidently improved.

Did I miss anything? Is there somewhere else I should have "pointed the camera" and if so what is THAT picture?
Come on, Poli - give me something. I need cheering up.

 

[Elixir]

You need a billion dollars in order to not be a peon?

Gawd I hope not. At least in the short term I think/hope to avoid becoming a geriatric peon. But it will likely require spending every penny of the couple million I might be able to raise by selling everything I own of any value. But even with a hundred million in equity, a younger person WILL be a peon unless they tithe 10-20% to Dear Leader. Their freedoms and options will be increasingly constrained or expanded in proportion to their ability and willingness to monetarily support the ruling Junta. Do you disagree, B20? If so pls explain.

 

[Elixir]

You appear to be obviously correct about species and climate, and obviously incorrect about human habitability.

I think that the 25x or more expansion of human population in the intervening millennium speaks otherwise. (I don’t think that will be the case in the next one.)

Obviously the earth was quite fecund for humans in 1025 despite their lack of modern healthcare, lower life expectancies and greater proportion of time spent on “necessities”.

 

[Politesse]

The human population of earth in 1025 is estimated to have been around 300 million.
Atmospheric concentration of CO2 was about 280 ppm.

You say "wide-angle lens", then attempt to narrow down "all environmental issues" down to a single very specific data point "estimates of CO2 concentration", that you believe confirms your ideological perspective?

 

[Elixir]

The human population of earth in 1025 is estimated to have been around 300 million.
Atmospheric concentration of CO2 was about 280 ppm.

You say "wide-angle lens", then attempt to narrow down "all environmental issues" down to a single very specific data point "estimates of CO2 concentration", that you believe confirms your ideological perspective?

No, the intervening reproductive success of HSS is an empirical FACT that supports my OBSERVATION.

Feel free to ignore CO2 concentrations if doing so strikes your fancy. They may or may not be a feature of friendliness to humans, depending on where you focus the pinpoint of your ideological telephoto lens.

 

[Politesse]

Did I miss anything? Is there somewhere else I should have "pointed the camera" and if so what is THAT picture?

Yes. I think if you point the camera at any particular community or region as it has changed over time, you find an extremely complex picture of environmental relationships shifting and changing in oscillating cycles of balance to imbalance and back over the past several millennia. There are many points of overt ecological crisis. There are other points at which some sort of ecological balance was achieved, often for centuries or longer, the latter usually when the physical environment was stable for long enough that ritualized and customary behaviors had time to catch up with eternal realities. Humans are intelligent and inventive, often to our own detriment, but we are also capable of solving a surprising number of problems WHEN we stop trying to reason with our amygdala alone, and instead put the prefrontal cortex to work a problem based on its practical contraints and merits.

 

[Elixir]

Did I miss anything? Is there somewhere else I should have "pointed the camera" and if so what is THAT picture?

Yes. I think if you point the camera at any particular community or region as it has changed over time, you find an extremely complex picture of environmental relationships shifting and changing in oscillating cycles of balance to imbalance and back over the past several millennia.

Agreed. But that is a narrowed view, and irrelevant if there exist an OVERALL trend over the last milennium toward reduced "habitability".

There are many points of overt ecological crisis. There are other points at which some sort of ecological balance was achieved

Example? Duration of such "eco-balance" moments - increasing or decreasing over the last milennium?

often for centuries or longer, the latter usually when the physical environment was stable for long enough that ritualized and customary behaviors had time to catch up with eternal realities.

We should anticipate then, that after disease or warfare, volcanism or impact events reduce the human population to a fraction of its current number, we can look forward to a predictable period of fecundity for HSS.

Humans are intelligent and inventive, often to our own detriment, but we are also capable of solving a surprising number of problems

Surprise me, please. I know it can happen - it has happened before.

WHEN we stop trying to reason with our amygdala alone, and instead put the prefrontal cortex to work a problem based on its practical contraints and merits.

On every fourteenth Thursday that falls on February 29?