Population

[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.

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?

We'll mine this planet to death, poison its air, and kill its seas.

Out of greed and ignorance, not because poor people were "allowed" to have too many children.

 

[Politesse]

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.

What history are you referring to?

 

[bilby]

Population isn't the problem here. Wealth is the problem, along with the lack of care for the environment of the wealthy.

If you eliminated 95% of the world's population, and the remainder lived the way the US does today (with robots doing the work of the missing people), the level of environmental degradation would likely be worse (robots run on electricity rather than rice and beans).

 

[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.

What history are you referring to?

Human history. But there are other examples, Kiabab Deer for example.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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?

We'll mine this planet to death, poison its air, and kill its seas.

Out of greed and ignorance, not because poor people were "allowed" to have too many children.

All people. Why are you singling out "poor people."

Earlier in the thread you mentioned eugenics. I don't get your attitude. Make your point.

 

[DBT]

Nobody has singled out "poor people," I don't know why it's being brought up time and again.

 

[Politesse]

Nobody has singled out "poor people," I don't know why it's being brought up time and again.

Because they are more or less always the target of eugenicists.

 

[Politesse]

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.

What history are you referring to?

Human history. But there are other examples, Kiabab Deer for example.

You were being prompted for something specific from human history. No idea why you thought I was talking about deer.

 

[DBT]

Nobody has singled out "poor people," I don't know why it's being brought up time and again.

Because they are more or less always the target of eugenicists.

Has anyone here suggested eugenics as a solution? Is it even a serious proposal?

 

[Politesse]

Nobody has singled out "poor people," I don't know why it's being brought up time and again.

Because they are more or less always the target of eugenicists.

Has anyone here suggested eugenics as a solution? Is it even a serious proposal?

You seem to be employing an interesting definition of "nobody".

Perhaps you would like to lay out your plan in more specific terms. If you simply advocate that politicians need to "address overpopulation", history has a clear lesson to teach us about whom they will choose to target, every damn time.

 

[Politesse]

Human history. But there are other examples, Kiabab Deer for example.

Really, though. If "human history" shows that population reduction leads to positive environmental outcomes over the long term, you should be able to name some examples. Name a place and decade, and we can evaluate the available evidence. I swear to shit, I could concoct a better defense of your point than you have so far, and I don't even agree with it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Nobody has singled out "poor people," I don't know why it's being brought up time and again.

Because they are more or less always the target of eugenicists.

Has anyone here suggested eugenics as a solution? Is it even a serious proposal?

You seem to be employing an interesting definition of "nobody".

Perhaps you would like to lay out your plan in more specific terms. If you simply advocate that politicians need to "address overpopulation", history has a clear lesson to teach us about whom they will choose to target.

Population is and has been addressed by by governments, education and family planning programs. China went a bit insane with their "one child" policy and will likely suffer a severe shortage of manpower in the next couple decades because of it.

 

[Politesse]

Nobody has singled out "poor people," I don't know why it's being brought up time and again.

Because they are more or less always the target of eugenicists.

Has anyone here suggested eugenics as a solution? Is it even a serious proposal?

You seem to be employing an interesting definition of "nobody".

Perhaps you would like to lay out your plan in more specific terms. If you simply advocate that politicians need to "address overpopulation", history has a clear lesson to teach us about whom they will choose to target.

Population is and has been addressed by by governments, education and family planning programs. China went a bit insane with their "one child" policy.

So they did. And did it work? Has the population of China been reduced since they began that policy, and has that resulted in the cessation of environmental exploitation in that nation? Present your evidence.

 

[skepticalbip]

Nobody has singled out "poor people," I don't know why it's being brought up time and again.

Because they are more or less always the target of eugenicists.

Has anyone here suggested eugenics as a solution? Is it even a serious proposal?

You seem to be employing an interesting definition of "nobody".

Perhaps you would like to lay out your plan in more specific terms. If you simply advocate that politicians need to "address overpopulation", history has a clear lesson to teach us about whom they will choose to target.

Population is and has been addressed by by governments, education and family planning programs. China went a bit insane with their "one child" policy.

So they did. And did it work? Has the population of China been reduced since they began that policy, and has that resulted in the cessation of environmental exploitation in that nation? Present your evidence.

You ignored the first sentence and my saying that China's policy was insane.

 

[DBT]

Nobody has singled out "poor people," I don't know why it's being brought up time and again.

Because they are more or less always the target of eugenicists.

Has anyone here suggested eugenics as a solution? Is it even a serious proposal?

You seem to be employing an interesting definition of "nobody".

Perhaps you would like to lay out your plan in more specific terms. If you simply advocate that politicians need to "address overpopulation", history has a clear lesson to teach us about whom they will choose to target, every damn time.

I was questioning the claim that the poor People are a target. I know that there are extremists who support a population cull, but they don't set policy. Being irrelevant, they just mouth off.
venting their frustrations.

 

[Politesse]

Nobody has singled out "poor people," I don't know why it's being brought up time and again.

Because they are more or less always the target of eugenicists.

Has anyone here suggested eugenics as a solution? Is it even a serious proposal?

You seem to be employing an interesting definition of "nobody".

Perhaps you would like to lay out your plan in more specific terms. If you simply advocate that politicians need to "address overpopulation", history has a clear lesson to teach us about whom they will choose to target, every damn time.

I was questioning the claim that the poor People are a target. I know that there are extremists who support a population cull, but they don't set policy. Being irrelevant, they just mouth off.
venting their frustrations.

There is an empirical reason why poor people tend to be targeted by programs of population control, aside from simple class aggression. They very predictably tend to have far more children than affluent people (this is a simple survival tactic in nations or situations with high infant mortality), have limited political capital to resist programs of population reduction, and cannot afford to evade legislation as in China where the affluent could afford penalty fees for extra children but the poor could not.

And "they", historically, have almost always controlled policy in places where population reduction has been embraced.

 

[DBT]

Nobody has singled out "poor people," I don't know why it's being brought up time and again.

Because they are more or less always the target of eugenicists.

Has anyone here suggested eugenics as a solution? Is it even a serious proposal?

You seem to be employing an interesting definition of "nobody".

Perhaps you would like to lay out your plan in more specific terms. If you simply advocate that politicians need to "address overpopulation", history has a clear lesson to teach us about whom they will choose to target, every damn time.

I was questioning the claim that the poor People are a target. I know that there are extremists who support a population cull, but they don't set policy. Being irrelevant, they just mouth off.
venting their frustrations.

There is an empirical reason why poor people tend to be targeted by programs of population control, aside from simple class aggression. They very predictably tend to have far more children than affluent people (this is a simple survival tactic in nations or situations with high infant mortality), have limited political capital to resist programs of population reduction, and cannot afford to evade legislation as in China where the affluent could afford penalty fees for extra children but the poor could not.

And "they", historically, have almost always controlled policy in places where population reduction has been embraced.

We are talking about world population, what each nation does depends on their own ideology and politics. The US, European, British or Australian response, for instance, may be different to China, and probably each other. Ours is not a United World.

 

[Politesse]

Nobody has singled out "poor people," I don't know why it's being brought up time and again.

Because they are more or less always the target of eugenicists.

Has anyone here suggested eugenics as a solution? Is it even a serious proposal?

You seem to be employing an interesting definition of "nobody".

Perhaps you would like to lay out your plan in more specific terms. If you simply advocate that politicians need to "address overpopulation", history has a clear lesson to teach us about whom they will choose to target, every damn time.

I was questioning the claim that the poor People are a target. I know that there are extremists who support a population cull, but they don't set policy. Being irrelevant, they just mouth off.
venting their frustrations.

There is an empirical reason why poor people tend to be targeted by programs of population control, aside from simple class aggression. They very predictably tend to have far more children than affluent people (this is a simple survival tactic in nations or situations with high infant mortality), have limited political capital to resist programs of population reduction, and cannot afford to evade legislation as in China where the affluent could afford penalty fees for extra children but the poor could not.

And "they", historically, have almost always controlled policy in places where population reduction has been embraced.

We are talking about world population, what each nation does depends on their own ideology and politics. The US, European, British or Australian response, for instance, may be different to China, and probably each other. Ours is not a United World.

And yet you seem incapable of discussing or unwiling to discuss the specifics of any particular situation that might lend support to your views.

 

[DBT]

Nobody has singled out "poor people," I don't know why it's being brought up time and again.

Because they are more or less always the target of eugenicists.

Has anyone here suggested eugenics as a solution? Is it even a serious proposal?

You seem to be employing an interesting definition of "nobody".

Perhaps you would like to lay out your plan in more specific terms. If you simply advocate that politicians need to "address overpopulation", history has a clear lesson to teach us about whom they will choose to target, every damn time.

I was questioning the claim that the poor People are a target. I know that there are extremists who support a population cull, but they don't set policy. Being irrelevant, they just mouth off.
venting their frustrations.

There is an empirical reason why poor people tend to be targeted by programs of population control, aside from simple class aggression. They very predictably tend to have far more children than affluent people (this is a simple survival tactic in nations or situations with high infant mortality), have limited political capital to resist programs of population reduction, and cannot afford to evade legislation as in China where the affluent could afford penalty fees for extra children but the poor could not.

And "they", historically, have almost always controlled policy in places where population reduction has been embraced.

We are talking about world population, what each nation does depends on their own ideology and politics. The US, European, British or Australian response, for instance, may be different to China, and probably each other. Ours is not a United World.

And yet you seem incapable of discussing or unwiling to discuss the specifics of any particular situation that might lend support to your views.

I was identifying the issue of sustainability in relation to population size and consumption rates. The obvious solution is to reduce and/or keep consumption down to sustainable levels. How that is done is open to discussion.

 

[bilby]

Reducing population can only be done by reducing birth rates, or by killing people.

Rapidly reducing population cannot be done by reducing birth rates.

Calls for population reduction as a response to an immediate term crisis - climate change, for example - are therefore either very poorly thought through, or genocidal.