Over population derail from "Humans as non-animals"

[bilby]

There's no healthy level of gut microplastics.

It's very hard to find any true statement that begins with "There's no healthy level of...".

How could anyone know this? It's just a statement of faith, based on the very commonplace but completely irrational fear of "contamination" as a problem in its own right.

Contamination is only a problem if, as, and when it causes an actual problem.

The dose makes the poison.

 

[Swammerdami]

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.

The plastic their businesses use would be roughly the same if the businesses were operated as a co-op, or by government. Nasty billionaires may get away with naughty behavior that increases pollution but that is a political or judicial problem, not a direct result of their wealth.

I continue to be baffled at the claim that high human populations do not impact the ecosphere or the quality of human life.

Google News summary just pointed me to an article with this title:

Microplastics in placentas linked to premature births, study suggests​

Tiny plastic pollution more than 50% higher in placentas from preterm births than in those from full-term births

Plastic pollution tends to be proportional to population density, right? Actually I doubt it. High densities introduce problems which require MORE intensive technology, e.g. more use per capita of pollutants.
Microplastics in placentas are likely to be proportional to the magnitude of plastic pollution, right?
That microplastics in placentas are bad seems to follow from just the article's title, right?

I'm sorry if I've not connected the dots thoroughly on this one of so many MANY examples. I continue to be baffled that I should need to.

The usual rebuttal from the pro-overpopulation crowd is that PEOPLE are not the problem; the problem is BILLIONAIRES. But does a billion-aire really use one million times as much plastic as a thousand-aire? Seems unlikely.

Plastic pollution damages the ecosphere and human health regardless of the size of human population. There's no healthy level of gut microplastics.

?? Plastic pollution is proportional to population (density), or rather worse than proportional as I already explained. Plastic in a foetus is roughly proportional to plastic in the environment.

Or is it REALLY your claim that a foetus with 1 piece of microplastic has been damaged as much as a foetus with a million pieces of microplastic?

So the problem seems to be that we don't manage plastic waste because manufacturers are allowed to externalise the environmental cost of their products.

Perhaps. But
(A) As a matter of fact "We" do NOT force manufacturers to externalize the environmental cost of MANY or MOST products.
(B) Some types of pollution or other woes of overpopulation cannot be glibly dismissed with "externalize the costs" even if there were the political will to do so.
(C) The (Firefox?) spell-checker insists on a 'Z' in externaliZe rather than 'S.' If there's an easy way to instruct the checker to switch to UK mode when responding to UK persons, I don't know what it is.

 

[Elixir]

Nasty billionaires may get away with naughty behavior that increases pollution but that is a political or judicial problem, not a direct result of their wealth.

I agree. But the greed that drives billionaires also permits and even fuels polluting practices all along the way. These are the people dictating aspects of not only their own behavior but also that of employees, associates and even the lowly consumer whose habits and whose pennies enable such tremendous accumulation of wealth and the pollution of the environment.
It is an oft mouthed syllogism that with great power comes great responsibility.
But apparently power borne purely of wealth* is exempt from any attached responsibility.

* example provided upon request

 

[Elixir]

(A) As a matter of fact "We" do NOT force manufacturers to externalize the environmental cost of MANY or MOST products.

Nor do billionaires take it upon themselves or their companies to foot such costs (in most cases). Which is what makes it a legislative problem. But oh, wait, the billionaires own the legislators, and buy enough media to make voters feel okay with that.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

 

[Bomb#20]

(C) The (Firefox?) spell-checker insists on a 'Z' in externaliZe rather than 'S.' If there's an easy way to instruct the checker to switch to UK mode when responding to UK persons, I don't know what it is.

As it should be -- no reason the rest of us should prioritize catering to the delusions of people who think there's an 'S' in "externalize".

 

[steve_bank]

What COVID, bird flu and its affect on egg and chicken supplies, and the La fires show is that our large population is on shaky ground.

I was talking to a state cop about gawkers slowing traffic at a highway accident. He said to me 'You don;t understand. Individually people are smart, collectively they are like sheep'.

When I walk over the I5 bridge I see the thousands of cars bumper to bumper going somewhere as fast as they can.

 

[DBT]

A world population voluntarily kept under one billion would be ideal.

 

[bilby]

A world population voluntarily kept under one billion would be ideal.

Would it?

If the poorest billion alive today were the only humans then (ceteris paribus) human life would be miserable, but our environmental influence would be tiny.

If the richest billion were the only humans, human life would be great, but our environmental influence would barely change (and would likely be made worse by the construction of an army of robots to do all the heavy labour needed to support everyone).

What do you envisage would be so much better at that population level, and why?

Leaving aside the difficulty of achieving it (it's impossible), how, who, and what would it help?

World population was last 1 billion in about 1804.

The world during the rule of George III wasn't noted for its environmentally benign human behaviours, nor for its high quality of life for anyone (other, perhaps, than for a handful of kings and their immediate hangers-on).

 

[Elixir]

If the richest billion were the only humans, human life would be great, but our environmental influence would barely change.

Why the dichotomy? If all the real estate in the world was owned by a billion people, up to 7/8 of what is currently used for food and shelter could be returned to a “”natural state”.
My problem is that infrastructure built for many billions would fall into disrepair under those conditions, and that the billion “rich” would soon be rather poor by today’s standards.

 

[bilby]

If the richest billion were the only humans, human life would be great, but our environmental influence would barely change.

Why the dichotomy? If all the real estate in the world was owned by a billion people, up to 7/8 of what is currently used for food and shelter could be returned to a “”natural state”.

When was the last time that wealthy real estate owners were in the habit of allowing their property to revert to a "natural state"?

If it doesn't have peasants living on it or growing food on it, it can be turned over to the production of cash crops and luxury goods.

Capitslism is structurally averse to wadted resources; If it's useful for anything, it will get used.

My problem is that infrastructure built for many billions would fall into disrepair under those conditions, and that the billion “rich” would soon be rather poor by today’s standards.

That's very likely, absent the army of robots I mentioned.

 

[Elixir]

If it doesn't have peasants living on it or growing food on it, it can be turned over to the production of cash crops and luxury goods.

The billion wealthiest people doesn’t include peasants.
There will be no cash for crops exceeding 1/8 of what is consumed today … maybe a little more just for some luxury items - Kona coffee, cocaine, opium poppies - but nothing like the amount of land that is used today.

 

[DBT]

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. Quality of life, not consumerism and quantity....."Hey, let's cram as many people as we can onto the planet."

 

[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.

 

[bilby]

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

... said literally nobody, ever.

If you argue against the people who say that, you will win easily; But you might end up with straw in your hair.

 

[DBT]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Elixir]

"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.

 

[Elixir]

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.

Precisely.
I lay a disproportionate level of responsibility for that with the people making the most personal gain - the billionaires. The "free market" doesn't just allow them to use irresponsible packaging, shady advertising, predatory business tactics, etc.; etc. to grow profits, - it requires it. The only constraining force afaik is regulatory, and that ... well, that is going away as I'm sure you have noticed.

 

[Politesse]

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.

Depends on the resource, and how you're distributing it.