Too many people?

[bilby]

Desert, no. One of the inputs is water.

Water is cheap.

Not in deserts it's not. Pretty much by definition.

 

[bilby]

I would prefer using overflow to push switchable methods to do hydrocarbon generation rather than cracking water.

Yeah, methanol is a far superior vehicle fuel than hydrogen. And for that matter, you can make synthetic octane, and add it to the existing gasoline infrastructure, obviating the need to replace the world's vehicle fleet, or to modify existing distribution networks, which is an enormous inefficiency in any plan to decarbonise transportation.

 

[bilby]

I am a good person, and I want to do everything we can to expand human capacity to meet human needs.

I. am. not. a. monster.

Show me a single eugenicist who does not believe, fundamentally and fervently, that they are a good person who only wants the best for everyone.

Indeed. Though some have a rather narrow view on who qualifies as "everyone".

 

[Jarhyn]

I would prefer using overflow to push switchable methods to do hydrocarbon generation rather than cracking water.

Yeah, methanol is a far superior vehicle fuel than hydrogen. And for that matter, you can make synthetic octane, and add it to the existing gasoline infrastructure, obviating the need to replace the world's vehicle fleet, or to modify existing distribution networks, which is an enormous inefficiency in any plan to decarbonise transportation.

I would love to make a wear-leveling system for switchable hydrocarbon/octane/hydroponic output overflow. That shit is my jam. Done right it should be possible to keep most grow cycles for hydroponics balanced, and to allow recharge downtime for hydrocarbon/methanol processes by cycling the kick-off group properly, with a minimum of failed cycles due to abridgement.

 

[bilby]

Then you haven't understood my position at all.

I'm not proposing solutions to a population problem, because I'm convinced that no such problem exists.

Yes, I understand that is your position. I wasn't trying to say you thought there was a population problem.

Once again, Saier says the way to limit population is that "Anyone considering parenthood should have all the alternative options at their disposal, including (a) abstaining from sex—in marriage and outside of it, an option few couples choose, (b) using truly reliable forms of contraception, or (c) abortion."

I understand that is very close to what you say will successfully prevent population from skyrocketing out of control.

No, it's fairly close to what I say HAS PREVENTED population from skyrocketing out of control.

Past tense.

It's over. Done. Dusted. Complete. Finished. The end.

Exponential population growth was a problem, until the contraceptive pill was released to market in 1954, and that one invention was the entire and complete solution.

Of course it took a couple of decades to become clear that the problem had been solved; But nobody who is paying attention has an excuse for thinking that it still exists today.

 

[Elixir]

Desert, no. One of the inputs is water.

Water is cheap.

Not in deserts it's not. Pretty much by definition.

There are point sources and water tables, even in deserts.

 

[bilby]

You are also not a person that has demonstrated that there is over-population now... or demonstrated a limit at what is clearly an overshoot for the global population. (links aren't proof)

So you probably need to get to that before discussing how we cull the population down over the next 100 years... which will be too late anyway as we would have needed to see to this 75 years ago.

Read the opening post. I believe I was asking questions, not asserting what the limit is.

Regarding the solution, can you tell me what is wrong with seeing that "Anyone considering parenthood should have all the alternative options at their disposal, including (a) abstaining from sex—in marriage and outside of it, an option few couples choose, (b) using truly reliable forms of contraception, or (c) abortion."

That's easy - it assumes as a basic (but unstated) premise that the options available to the population at large are in the control of some authority that dictates what choices people are allowed to make about something that is perhaps one of the most private and personal areas of their existence.

The idea that anyone considering parenthood might not have those options available to them is a totalitarian dystopia; And proposing that one might have both the means and the desire to graciously grant individuals permission to make that choice for themselves is some seriously authoritarian bullshit.

 

[Merle]

Exponential population growth was a problem, until the contraceptive pill was released to market in 1954, and that one invention was the entire and complete solution.

Of course it took a couple of decades to become clear that the problem had been solved; But nobody who is paying attention has an excuse for thinking that it still exists today.

OF course. Exponential population growth has stopped. Population is still rising, but not exponentially.

The problem, as I see it, is that it may already be higher than the carrying capacity of the Earth.

 

[Merle]

Yes, it is, unless the people who do it do it exclusively by their active consent and agreement.

As you surely know, nobody here is suggesting we do birth control without active consent.

 

[bilby]

Looking back at the opening post, I can see one paragraph that might be misinterpreted. It says:

We all want humanity, and our collective accomplishments, to endure far more than a few centuries. Saier says this will require a substantial population reduction, but he is not specific on how much. He says our only hope to achieve the required reduction is through overcoming natural human greed, dishonesty, and selfishness. “It is not clear that we humans are capable of such an achievement,” he adds, “but it is our only hope.” And that, my friends, is our predicament.

I should be clear that when Saier talks about overcoming greed and selfishness, he was not talking about killing greedy and selfish people. He was talking about the fact that we, as humans, tend to look out for ourselves. If decisions for what is best for humanity interfere with our personal wants, we might all choose to favor our personal wants over the common good. He was talking about working together for the common good.

Yeah, it turns out that his insulting belief that people want, on average, to have more children than the replacement level is unfounded; And that the dangerous conclusion that this false premise feeds (...therefore it's necessary for someone to tell them to change their behaviour) is therefore false.

"I don't want to have to force anyone to behave as I demand, but sadly it's necessary", is a common excuse for a power grab. And indeed in this case it cannot serve any other purpose.

"I want to tell other people how to behave" is a rather ignoble (but common) sentiment. Dressing it up as "I want to save the world from this dreadful disaster" makes everyone feel so much better about it.

Not least because that's a legitimate thing to do if that disaster is a genuine possibility.

The population bomb is a dud; It was defused in 1954. Trying to use it to terrorise people into compliance today is unconscionable.

 

[bilby]

Any direct action taken with the intent of decreasing someone's life expectancy is expecting people to accept unnecessary and avoidable injury. Nobody will consent to that, on any large scale.

Oh, I don't know. The tobacco industry managed to get the enthusiastic consent of a pretty large fraction of humanity.

Albeit decreasing life expectancy wasn't the objective, but a mere byproduct of the objective of getting obscenely rich.

 

[bilby]

The slash and burn doesn't pay for the destroyed rainforest.

A "slash and burn" human population is no danger to the rainforest ecosystem unless the human population practicing "slash and burn" is too big for the rainforest.

The population that's "too big" in such a case, is tiny.

The whole of Europe was deforested by a tiny population of humans with literally medieval technology.

Humans grow a lot faster than trees.

 

[bilby]

Passively decreasing births is the only option that has been put on the table here.

You don't have the authority to put options on the table here.

Nor are you (or anyone else) justified in taking credit for something everyone was already doing.

 

[bilby]

Desert, no. One of the inputs is water.

Water is cheap.

Not in deserts it's not. Pretty much by definition.

There are point sources and water tables, even in deserts.

Indeed, but exploiting them is generally harmful to the environment, and is fundamentally unnecessary given that there are plenty of better places you could site your plant, where you are close to both water supplies and customers for your product.

 

[Jarhyn]

Any direct action taken with the intent of decreasing someone's life expectancy is expecting people to accept unnecessary and avoidable injury. Nobody will consent to that, on any large scale.

Oh, I don't know. The tobacco industry managed to get the enthusiastic consent of a pretty large fraction of humanity.

Albeit decreasing life expectancy wasn't the objective, but a mere byproduct of the objective of getting obscenely rich.

The issue here is that that isn't consent.

Consent requires symmetrical information access.

Asymmetry, whether it's unilateral violation, or non-reflected information spoils all consent by the degree of asymmetry.

 

[Merle]

I mention them because of the dog whistle euphemisms that have repeatedly and throughout history been used to justify or mask efforts towards genocide are common, and not specifically stating "passive birth reduction" is alwaus going to lead one way or another to active measures that are universally genocide.

I. am. not. promoting. genocide. Period.

 

[Merle]

Yes, it is, unless the people who do it do it exclusively by their active consent and agreement.

As. you. know. I. am. emphatically. not. suggesting. birth. control. without. consent.

Period.

 

[bilby]

As. you. know. I. am. emphatically. not. suggesting. birth. control. without. consent.

Period.

I. am. not. promoting. genocide. Period.

So what are you promoting?

Did you start a thread to point out that everything is fine, and nothing more needs to be done?

Because while that's pretty much a correct summary of the situation, it's an odd thing to start a thread about.

Did you imagine that the idea that people should be free to make their own choices about how many children they have, what they eat for breakfast, or how they spend their own money, is controversial?

Too many people?

No, there aren't, and it's highly unlikely that there ever will be.

/Thread.

The other 257 posts were needless, apparently.

 

[Elixir]

Did you imagine that the idea that people should be free to make their own choices about how many children they have, what they eat for breakfast, or how they spend their own money, is controversial?

I dunno. It might be different in Au. Here, the “how many children” thing is up in the air with the SCOTUS, and the assumption that anyone has any money is subject to the whim of the insane clown posse in the House of Representatives.
Breakfast might be off limits, for the moment.

 

[bilby]

Did you imagine that the idea that people should be free to make their own choices about how many children they have, what they eat for breakfast, or how they spend their own money, is controversial?

I dunno. It might be different in Au. Here, the “how many children” thing is up in the air with the SCOTUS, and the assumption that anyone has any money is subject to the whim of the insane clown posse in the House of Representatives.
Breakfast might be off limits, for the moment.

Well obviously Americans have to do as they're told; It is after all the Land of the Free^TM