Population

[DBT]

The problem is a combination of population numbers and consumption rate.

 

[Politesse]

The problem is a combination of population numbers and consumption rate.

Can you present data to support your belief that (1) non violent anti-popular policies are succesful in reducing population, and that (2) reducing the population of a community decreases the rate at which it consumes natural resources?

 

[DBT]

The problem is a combination of population numbers and consumption rate.

Can you present data to support your belief that (1) non violent anti-popular policies are succesful in reducing population, and that (2) reducing the population of a community decreases the rate at which it consumes natural resources?

I said ''a combination of population and consumption'' - where in relation to growth in demand and finite resources, comes the time where demand outstrips supply....environmental conditions that no longer support high consumption/ lavish lifestyles.

 

[Politesse]

The problem is a combination of population numbers and consumption rate.

Can you present data to support your belief that (1) non violent anti-popular policies are succesful in reducing population, and that (2) reducing the population of a community decreases the rate at which it consumes natural resources?

I said ''a combination of population and consumption'' - where in relation to growth in demand and finite resources, comes the time where demand outstrips supply....environmental conditions that no longer support high consumption/ lavish lifestyles.

So efforts to reduce population won't help?

Or are you simply confessing that there's no empirical evidence that they do?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The problem is a combination of population numbers and consumption rate.

Can you present data to support your belief that (1) non violent anti-popular policies are succesful in reducing population, and that (2) reducing the population of a community decreases the rate at which it consumes natural resources?

I said ''a combination of population and consumption'' - where in relation to growth in demand and finite resources, comes the time where demand outstrips supply....environmental conditions that no longer support high consumption/ lavish lifestyles.

So efforts to reduce population won't help?

Or are you simply confessing that there's no empirical evidence that they do?

Reducing population will definitely help. That's a no brainer.

 

[Politesse]

That's a no brainer.

I'm certain you're quite correct about that, but this is too important a problem to attempt to solve brainlessly. Or without evidence-based solutions.

The fact that I've been making the same simple request repeatedly, and you and others have not succeeded in producing a single speck of concrete evidence to support the accuracy of your claims, is why I consider Malthusianism to be pseudoscience rather than science. You want to convince me of something, show it to me, don't just reiterate your point. I teach teenagers for a living, so I am immune to emotive expressions of disdain. Particularly when there's nothing of substance behind it.

 

[DBT]

Population size is a major factor. As is consumption rate. How we deal with these issues being the question.

 

[Politesse]

Population size is a major factor. As is consumption rate. How we deal with these issues being the question.

Correct! So, on what basis should we propose and implement solutions to problems of cultural ecology?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That's a no brainer.

I'm certain you're quite correct about that, but this is too important a problem to attempt to solve brainlessly. Or without evidence-based solutions.

The fact that I've been making the same simple request repeatedly, and you and others have not succeeded in producing a single speck of concrete evidence to support the accuracy of your claims, is why I consider Malthusianism to be pseudoscience rather than science. You want to convince me of something, show it to me, don't just reiterate your point. I teach teenagers for a living, so I am immune to emotive expressions of disdain. Particularly when there's nothing of substance behind it.

I see you've agreed that population is a major part of the equation. Kudos. Historically it has been the major part of the equation. Do you have examples where it has not been the major part of the equation?

 

[DBT]

Population size is a major factor. As is consumption rate. How we deal with these issues being the question.

Correct! So, on what basis should we propose and implement solutions to problems of cultural ecology?

What about you, do you have any suggestions? What is the solution?

 

[Politesse]

That's a no brainer.

I'm certain you're quite correct about that, but this is too important a problem to attempt to solve brainlessly. Or without evidence-based solutions.

The fact that I've been making the same simple request repeatedly, and you and others have not succeeded in producing a single speck of concrete evidence to support the accuracy of your claims, is why I consider Malthusianism to be pseudoscience rather than science. You want to convince me of something, show it to me, don't just reiterate your point. I teach teenagers for a living, so I am immune to emotive expressions of disdain. Particularly when there's nothing of substance behind it.

I see you've agreed that population is a major part of the equation. Kudos. Historically it has been the major part of the equation. Do you have examples where it has not been the major part of the equation?

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply by "major"; every factor in a cultural ecological system is potentially major. But if you mean that it is single-handedly responsible for causing any particular crises, the only concrete examples I can think of are housing and epidemiology. In most other cases, population is not in and of itself nearly as important as how a social system responds to the needs and perceived needs of that population. Population is a number, and it's an important number in particular for governments and other systems of social organization that need to know how many constituents you have and what they will be requiring or demanding. From there, though, you need to ask much more specific questions about what resources are being consumed, how and why they are being consumed, and how that process might be either optimized or eliminated.

Example: Logging.

Trees are a problem in that they are one of the few plant resources that are still primarily foraged rather than farmed, resulting in an industry heavily dependent on the destruction of natural landscapes, and an ugly special issue created by the demand for exotic hardwoods - which happen to also be, very frequently, keystone ecological species for many of the same reasons that they are popular economically. Their size, their durability, their fire resistance, etc are valuable to humans and other organisms alike. Population is connected to this issue in two ways: in theory, almost all humans use lumber products, necessitating some degree of lumber use unless more suitable alternatives are found. Second, the industry draws on the knowledge and labor of the populations local to prime lumber harvesting regions. On the other hand, "reducing global population" would not be a meaningful way to address the issue, both because all attempts to do so have ultimately failed to actually reduce global population in a meaningful sense (and this is an immediate problem, not something that can wait for a PR campaign to maybe cause a dip in some regional populations on a generational scale), and because population in and of itself is not the major driver for hardwood deforestation. The most damaging hardwood trades aren't actually in species used commonly by most human beings, but rather luxury products. Their value proceeds directly from their increasing scarcity and the degree to which they are valued beyond their mere practical applications. There isn't actually a problem of not being able to produce enough wood of some kind to meet mass human needs, the rise of organized tree farming initiatives have created more than enough raw lumber to meet the strict needs of most human populations, were we to design systems that efficiently redistribute lumber resources to the people who need them, taking strain off of local forests and redirecting many economies to a stance that is less dangerous. But the most critical issue, again, is the commodification of certain hardwoods to the point of making their harvesting economically irrestible. And the epicenter of that demand, for exotic hardwoods, are the core economic markets of Europe, East Asia, Indonesia, and the Middle East. This is an economic, political, and technological question more than it is directly created by the number of people in the world. The United States could randomly kill half of its current population tomorrow, and there would still be plenty of demand for redwood deck chairs, because the reasons redwood is so deeply valued were never contingent on its use by the average global citizen, but the degree to which it has been commodified and marketed to a small economic upper class whose desire for the substance would not be quenched by a partial reduction of their numbers. The only reason the natural stands of redwoods haven't been entirely clear-cut had nothing to do with population loss in the Pacific Northwest where the trees are located. Actually, these are among the fastest growing regions in the United States/Canada by numbers. Rather, mass deforestation was stalled by nine solid decades of activism and research, and ultimately by a three-pronged approach of increased government regulation of wild redwood harvesting, realization within the industry that sustainable harvesting practices would maximize investment over the long term, and a growing new industry in farmed redwood products.

 

[Politesse]

Population size is a major factor. As is consumption rate. How we deal with these issues being the question.

Correct! So, on what basis should we propose and implement solutions to problems of cultural ecology?

What about you, do you have any suggestions? What is the solution?

There isn't one solution; every ecological crisis has many and complex dimensions of concern. This is a matter that I consider very important, and I've spent a fair amount of time studying the history of cultural ecology and environmental projects. I have come to believe that the core of an effective ecological intervention will always be:

1. The degree to which it has been informed by the science of ecology, the greatest breadth of access to relevant data sets, and contextual observations of the key areas of production, processing, consumption, and disposal for a given environmental resource.
2. The degree to which the social and ecological contexts of those regions are taken into account to designing interventions specific to the local situations in which the intervention will need to be implemented.
3. The degree to which the planned intervention is supported by both international capital, local policymakers, and the constituent population of the regions where key harvesting and production areas concentrate.
4. Ongoing evaluation and adjustment for the viccissitudes of an international market of exchange whose whims cannot always be predicted far in advance, and can seldom be meaningful controlled, especially in key global production zones, where meaningful governmental regulation and policymaking are often inconsistent or even absent.
5. Flexibility in the face of potential unknown natural or social variables, as it is inevitable that local ecological situations will present novel challenges not previously encountered or not critically encountered by ecologists or activists until they emerge as critical in a new case.

 

[DBT]

Population size is a major factor. As is consumption rate. How we deal with these issues being the question.

Correct! So, on what basis should we propose and implement solutions to problems of cultural ecology?

What about you, do you have any suggestions? What is the solution?

There isn't one solution; every ecological crisis has many and complex dimensions of concern. This is a matter that I consider very important, and I've spent a fair amount of time studying the history of cultural ecology and environmental projects. I have come to believe that the core of an effective ecological intervention will always be:

1. The degree to which it has been informed by the science of ecology, the greatest breadth of access to relevant data sets, and contextual observations of the key areas of production, processing, consumption, and disposal for a given environmental resource.
2. The degree to which the social and ecological contexts of those regions are taken into account to designing interventions specific to the local situations in which the intervention will need to be implemented.
3. The degree to which the planned intervention is supported by both international capital, local policymakers, and the constituent population of the regions where key harvesting and production areas concentrate.
4. Ongoing evaluation and adjustment for the viccissitudes of an international market of exchange whose whims cannot always be predicted far in advance, and can seldom be meaningful controlled, especially in key global production zones, where meaningful governmental regulation and policymaking are often inconsistent or even absent.
5. Flexibility in the face of potential unknown natural or social variables, as it is inevitable that local ecological situations will present novel challenges not previously encountered or not critically encountered by ecologists or activists until they emerge as critical in a new case.

Reasonable as a general outline, but what about physical practice? How do the measures we take look in practice?

 

[Politesse]

Population size is a major factor. As is consumption rate. How we deal with these issues being the question.

Correct! So, on what basis should we propose and implement solutions to problems of cultural ecology?

What about you, do you have any suggestions? What is the solution?

There isn't one solution; every ecological crisis has many and complex dimensions of concern. This is a matter that I consider very important, and I've spent a fair amount of time studying the history of cultural ecology and environmental projects. I have come to believe that the core of an effective ecological intervention will always be:

1. The degree to which it has been informed by the science of ecology, the greatest breadth of access to relevant data sets, and contextual observations of the key areas of production, processing, consumption, and disposal for a given environmental resource.
2. The degree to which the social and ecological contexts of those regions are taken into account to designing interventions specific to the local situations in which the intervention will need to be implemented.
3. The degree to which the planned intervention is supported by both international capital, local policymakers, and the constituent population of the regions where key harvesting and production areas concentrate.
4. Ongoing evaluation and adjustment for the viccissitudes of an international market of exchange whose whims cannot always be predicted far in advance, and can seldom be meaningful controlled, especially in key global production zones, where meaningful governmental regulation and policymaking are often inconsistent or even absent.
5. Flexibility in the face of potential unknown natural or social variables, as it is inevitable that local ecological situations will present novel challenges not previously encountered or not critically encountered by ecologists or activists until they emerge as critical in a new case.

Reasonable as a general outline, but what about physical practice? How do the measures we take look in practice?

Well, that's always the tricky part, isn't it? Implementation is the most perilous part of any planned cultural intervention, and our shared past is littered with the ghosts of well-intentioned but poorly planned or informed initiatives. I think it is very important to look at the programs that have been implemented in the past and critically evaluate the degree to which they succeeded in their goals. Hence why I keep pressing you for examples - any examples - of cases in which a program of voluntarily encouraging depopulation succeeded in actually depopulating a region, and thereby reduced or ended a mass ecological threat in a clear and demonstrable way. If not, then we need to be counter-lobbying the industrial projects that most threaten our communal way of life, not passing out free condoms on the streets of Seattle in blind hope that Mendocino Redwood Co. will stop harvesting the old growth if enough families have one surviving child instead of two.

My biggest problem with overpopulation hysteria is that it predictably leads to inaction on ecological issues, especially by policymakers. If they can blame the results of industrial exploitation on vaguely defined "over-population" instead, it's a convenient out for them to avoid upsetting the economic constituencies that keep them in office, re-directing whatever energy might have been expended on improving environmental policy instead toward "population control" initiatives that never work and do nothing to measurably solve the crises at hand. Well, that's really my second problem, the biggest problem is the genocidal history of the eugenics movement that is attached at the hip to Malthusianism. But we've gone over that in this thread several times, and it seems unlikely opinions will change.

 

[DBT]

Population size is a major factor. As is consumption rate. How we deal with these issues being the question.

Correct! So, on what basis should we propose and implement solutions to problems of cultural ecology?

What about you, do you have any suggestions? What is the solution?

There isn't one solution; every ecological crisis has many and complex dimensions of concern. This is a matter that I consider very important, and I've spent a fair amount of time studying the history of cultural ecology and environmental projects. I have come to believe that the core of an effective ecological intervention will always be:

1. The degree to which it has been informed by the science of ecology, the greatest breadth of access to relevant data sets, and contextual observations of the key areas of production, processing, consumption, and disposal for a given environmental resource.
2. The degree to which the social and ecological contexts of those regions are taken into account to designing interventions specific to the local situations in which the intervention will need to be implemented.
3. The degree to which the planned intervention is supported by both international capital, local policymakers, and the constituent population of the regions where key harvesting and production areas concentrate.
4. Ongoing evaluation and adjustment for the viccissitudes of an international market of exchange whose whims cannot always be predicted far in advance, and can seldom be meaningful controlled, especially in key global production zones, where meaningful governmental regulation and policymaking are often inconsistent or even absent.
5. Flexibility in the face of potential unknown natural or social variables, as it is inevitable that local ecological situations will present novel challenges not previously encountered or not critically encountered by ecologists or activists until they emerge as critical in a new case.

Reasonable as a general outline, but what about physical practice? How do the measures we take look in practice?

Well, that's always the tricky part, isn't it? Implementation is the most perilous part of any planned cultural intervention, and our shared past is littered with the ghosts of well-intentioned but poorly planned or informed initiatives. I think it is very important to look at the programs that have been implemented in the past and critically evaluate the degree to which they succeeded in their goals. Hence why I keep pressing you for examples - any examples - of cases in which a program of voluntarily encouraging depopulation succeeded in actually depopulating a region, and thereby reduced or ended a mass ecological threat in a clear and demonstrable way. If not, then we need to be counter-lobbying the industrial projects that most threaten our communal way of life, not passing out free condoms on the streets of Seattle in blind hope that Mendocino Redwood Co. will stop harvesting the old growth if enough families have one surviving child instead of two.

My biggest problem with overpopulation hysteria is that it predictably leads to inaction on ecological issues, especially by policymakers. If they can blame the results of industrial exploitation on vaguely defined "over-population" instead, it's a convenient out for them to avoid upsetting the economic constituencies that keep them in office, re-directing whatever energy might have been expended on improving environmental policy instead toward "population control" initiatives that never work and do nothing to measurably solve the crises at hand. Well, that's really my second problem, the biggest problem is the genocidal history of the eugenics movement that is attached at the hip to Malthusianism. But we've gone over that in this thread several times, and it seems unlikely opinions will change.

I wouldn't call it "overpopulation hysteria" - just identification of a problem. As with consumption, which, rather than being "overconsumption hysteria," is a matter of identifying a problem.

Problems need to be identified before solutions are worked out.

 

[Politesse]

Population size is a major factor. As is consumption rate. How we deal with these issues being the question.

Correct! So, on what basis should we propose and implement solutions to problems of cultural ecology?

What about you, do you have any suggestions? What is the solution?

There isn't one solution; every ecological crisis has many and complex dimensions of concern. This is a matter that I consider very important, and I've spent a fair amount of time studying the history of cultural ecology and environmental projects. I have come to believe that the core of an effective ecological intervention will always be:

1. The degree to which it has been informed by the science of ecology, the greatest breadth of access to relevant data sets, and contextual observations of the key areas of production, processing, consumption, and disposal for a given environmental resource.
2. The degree to which the social and ecological contexts of those regions are taken into account to designing interventions specific to the local situations in which the intervention will need to be implemented.
3. The degree to which the planned intervention is supported by both international capital, local policymakers, and the constituent population of the regions where key harvesting and production areas concentrate.
4. Ongoing evaluation and adjustment for the viccissitudes of an international market of exchange whose whims cannot always be predicted far in advance, and can seldom be meaningful controlled, especially in key global production zones, where meaningful governmental regulation and policymaking are often inconsistent or even absent.
5. Flexibility in the face of potential unknown natural or social variables, as it is inevitable that local ecological situations will present novel challenges not previously encountered or not critically encountered by ecologists or activists until they emerge as critical in a new case.

Reasonable as a general outline, but what about physical practice? How do the measures we take look in practice?

Well, that's always the tricky part, isn't it? Implementation is the most perilous part of any planned cultural intervention, and our shared past is littered with the ghosts of well-intentioned but poorly planned or informed initiatives. I think it is very important to look at the programs that have been implemented in the past and critically evaluate the degree to which they succeeded in their goals. Hence why I keep pressing you for examples - any examples - of cases in which a program of voluntarily encouraging depopulation succeeded in actually depopulating a region, and thereby reduced or ended a mass ecological threat in a clear and demonstrable way. If not, then we need to be counter-lobbying the industrial projects that most threaten our communal way of life, not passing out free condoms on the streets of Seattle in blind hope that Mendocino Redwood Co. will stop harvesting the old growth if enough families have one surviving child instead of two.

My biggest problem with overpopulation hysteria is that it predictably leads to inaction on ecological issues, especially by policymakers. If they can blame the results of industrial exploitation on vaguely defined "over-population" instead, it's a convenient out for them to avoid upsetting the economic constituencies that keep them in office, re-directing whatever energy might have been expended on improving environmental policy instead toward "population control" initiatives that never work and do nothing to measurably solve the crises at hand. Well, that's really my second problem, the biggest problem is the genocidal history of the eugenics movement that is attached at the hip to Malthusianism. But we've gone over that in this thread several times, and it seems unlikely opinions will change.

I wouldn't call it "overpopulation hysteria" - just identification of a problem. As with consumption, which, rather than being "overconsumption hysteria," is a matter of identifying a problem.

Problems need to be identified before solutions are worked out.

Identifying a problem is not hysteria. Misidentifying a problem in the same wrong way for a century and a half, and admantly trying to convince everyone that it is the main threat of our times without any evidence, that is hysteria.

It's very easy to document that over-consumption of resources causes their depletion.

 

[DBT]

Identifying a problem is not hysteria. Misidentifying a problem in the same wrong way for a century and a half, and admantly trying to convince everyone that it is the main threat of our times without any evidence, that is hysteria.

It's very easy to document that over-consumption of resources causes their depletion.

Didn't you agree that long term sustainability is an issue of both population numbers and consumption rate?

 

[Politesse]

Didn't you agree that long term sustainability is an issue of both population numbers and consumption rate?

I agree that population is always a factor in sustainability, sure. Population is, very obviously, a large part of what any given polity is trying to sustain. That doesn't mean I agree with everything Malthusians believe about population.

 

[DBT]

Didn't you agree that long term sustainability is an issue of both population numbers and consumption rate?

I agree that population is always a factor in sustainability, sure. Population is, very obviously, a large part of what any given polity is trying to sustain. That doesn't mean I agree with everything Malthusians believe about population.

So what did you mean when you said: "I'm not feeling a lot of optimism about that lately, to be honest?" What do you believe will happen if we don't change our way of doing business, and our response is inadequate?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So what did you mean when you said: "I'm not feeling a lot of optimism about that lately, to be honest?" What do you believe will happen if we don't change our way of doing business, and our response is inadequate?

The simplest solution is reducing the population. Wealthy people cannot live a wealthy life without a large enough population to support that wealth. Historically, population reduction for whatever reason has led to environmental improvement. Human population reduction will definitely occur though not proactively. Our population will drop for the same reasons populations drop in other organisms, loss of suitable habitat that provides food and shelter.

Lots of folk like to say "catastrophe." I really don't know what they mean when they say this, referring to global heating and sea level rise. Even if human populations come into conflict as a result of our own ignorance - again - the planet's health is the real wild card. How does it respond in the long term? How is our survival and our freedom affected in the long term. Maybe that's what Poli is getting at.