Too many people?

[Elixir]

Crowded cities are a good thing.

"Good" for what or whom? Good for Gaia, sure (if that's a measurable value) but IMHO not so good for those individual humans who are increasingly removed from the bio-systems that keep them alive.

 

[lostone]

Are the cities growing that much, or is it the suburbs and exurbs? Whichever that may be, it still is very removed from those bio-systems you reference. The 'burbs are home to endless acres of green grass, largely maintained by chemicals that kill everything else, and hardly a natural bio-sphere

 

[Jarhyn]

It's a really charged topic.

I found that out the hard way.

This morning I was checking out a site that describes how people practicing genocide talk of overpopulation. I had never heard of that..

Yeah. It's... Well, at any rate, welcome to the forums, and I'm sorry you got such a bad first impression from me.

For whatever it's worth, I actually like you quite a bit.

There are a couple folks who I regularly butt heads with who are prone to trying to "boil the frog" by painting a picture of some problem. It always starts with building anxiety over a problem, (there's trouble in river city), and then presenting their shit-take "solution" (a school band) or worse just leaving that elephant in the room and watching as everyone else says their desired conclusions for them, and then poisoning the well against the actual practical solutions.

 

[bilby]

If the food and resources are being shipped from great distances there would seem to be more of an environmental impact as opposed to getting things locally.

Maybe. I'd like to see some kind of data to support that claim.

 

[bilby]

Crowded cities are a good thing.

"Good" for what or whom? Good for Gaia, sure (if that's a measurable value) but IMHO not so good for those individual humans who are increasingly removed from the bio-systems that keep them alive.

Cities ARE the systems that keep people alive. People want to move to cities so much that they will put up with awful conditions in order to do so. (Fortunately they no longer have to in the developed world, but the majority of migration to cities today is in the developing world).

The "bio-systems", like everything else, work better (and more sustainably) when processed by a tiny number of experts, than by a huge number of people with highly varied skills and abilities.

There's a good reason why local famines were commonplace in the middle ages, and why local crop failures were devastating even as recently as the twentieth century. That reason is largely that humans weren't sufficiently removed from the highly variable "bio-systems" that routinely fail to produce enough food locally in many areas - a problem that disappears when you can source your food globally.

What doesn't disappear is the ingrained worry about food shortages, which are irrelevant to today's world (other than as a consequence of war or deliberate economic policy).

Crowded cities are a good thing for humanity, and for the maintenance of the sustainable planetary biosphere on which humanity depends.

 

[Elixir]

Cities ARE the systems that keep people alive.

That’s like saying fungus keeps leaf cutter ants alive, and neglecting the leaves that feed the fungus. The difference is that most of the ants in their “cities” participate directly in some phase of that process.

 

[bilby]

Cities ARE the systems that keep people alive.

That’s like saying fungus keeps leaf cutter ants alive, and neglecting the leaves that feed the fungus. The difference is that most of the ants in their “cities” participate directly in some phase of that process.

Yes, humans are more efficient than ants because humans have vast numbers of people who are only indirectly involved with the production and transport of food.

That's why you never see an ant with its feet up in front of a widescreen TV drinking beer after a hard day at the office.

I am rather bemused at your apparent religious belief that direct involvement in food production is somehow necessary or valuable for humans.

 

[Elixir]

I am rather bemused at your apparent religious belief that direct involvement in food production is somehow necessary or valuable for humans.

The superfluity of involvement in such process is painfully obvious, as are the detrimental effects of that superfluity.
My belief in its value is not remotely unique or even rare. Nor is it in any way religious. In fact, IME it’s simply tacitly understood and appreciated among ‘most all those who are involved at the sub-industrial level.

 

[bilby]

I am rather bemused at your apparent religious belief that direct involvement in food production is somehow necessary or valuable for humans.

The superfluity of involvement in such process is painfully obvious, as are the detrimental effects of that superfluity.
My belief in its value is not remotely unique or even rare. Nor is it in any way religious. In fact, IME it’s simply tacitly understood and appreciated among ‘most all those who are involved at the sub-industrial level.

That's exactly the level of evidence and logic that leads to the conclusion that religion is truth.

You say you believe it because:

a) It's obvious
b) It's neither unique nor rare - ie it's popular; and
c) Those directly involved in it fervently believe it.

I remain rather bemused at your apparent religious belief that direct involvement in food production is somehow necessary or valuable for humans. I am now also surprised that you're apparently unaware that your religion is indistinguishable from other religions in its "reasons" and underlying "logic".

 

[Elixir]

The value to one’s subjective sense of well-being is VERY similar to that of religion, except that the “value” has tangible rather than symbolic components, and consists of repeatable, reliably experienced (excluding “acts of god“ ) enhancements of life experience.
All of which puts it in a completely different category.

 

[bilby]

The value to one’s subjective sense of well-being is VERY similar to that of religion, except that the “value” has tangible rather than symbolic components, and consists of repeatable, reliably experienced (excluding “acts of god“ ) enhancements of life experience.
All of which puts it in a completely different category.

Could you identify one or more of these tangible components?

Because I am not seeing any.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If the food and resources are being shipped from great distances there would seem to be more of an environmental impact as opposed to getting things locally.

Maybe. I'd like to see some kind of data to support that claim.

I did say "maybe" because I was waiting for some evidence that supports your assertion. Do you have anything to offer that supports your claim? If you don't, that's okay. I'm not attacking you, merely attempting to have an adult conversation.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

"Good" for what or whom? Good for Gaia, sure (if that's a measurable value) but IMHO not so good for those individual humans who are increasingly removed from the bio-systems that keep them alive.

How to quantify that in an economic sense is the question. Some of us, and bilby is certainly one, do not care about the health of other species, which is rather surprising considering what I call "me" is in fact a collection of billions of other organisms that live in symbiosis as "me." Obviously there are lots of people who do not know that and are therefore unable to appreciate the fact.

I grow some of my own food. Is it better for me to not grow any of my own food in terms of environmental cost? Maybe it is depending on the methods we use to mass produce food for humans. In any case, if I produce four hundred pounds of food for myself from my 1/2 acre, that's four hundred pounds of food that does not need to travel however many miles to get to me or I to it. That's an economic question.

The larger philosophical question you raise is tougher to answer. Gardening as a productive hobby has benefits beyond the production of food. Maybe one quantifies those benefits economically as well based on health and longevity. Like I said, I don't know, I only know what seems to make sense based on simple observation economically based on the costs of transporting food. Locally sourced food seems to make the most sense from the perspective of maintaining a healthy environment.

 

[bilby]

Some of us, and bilby is certainly one, do not care about the health of other species

This is not, in fact, true.

 

[Elixir]

Is the philosophical question really “larger” than the economic one? For me, the answer is resounding yes. I don’t look down on people who disagree; some people seem to thrive without ever touching any substance that has not been altered by man. I can’t do that for long.

 

[bilby]

But still FAR lower than it was when those people were doing all those things, but in a much more spread-out way.

Maybe. I'd like to see some kind of data to support that claim. If the food and resources are being shipped from great distances there would seem to be more of an environmental impact as opposed to getting things locally.

I'm not sure what data you need to support the fact that food is a tiny fraction of total transportation, and shipping food long distances is therefore worthwhile in order that we needn't ship
people, or much of their non-food needs, long distances on a regular basis.

The most obvious data is the simple cost of finished goods (including food); Cost is a pretty good proxy for environmental harm, at least for similar activities. It is cheap to send stuff around the world as containerised freight, because the fuel burned per tonne-km is tiny. Growing (or manufacturing) stuff locally is more expensive, largely because it's inefficient - ie requires more fuel - on a per tonne basis at the point of consumption.

Money is a pretty good way to measure the amount of energy consumed in getting a product to the end user. If it's cheaper, it's likely better for the environment, as long as the environment isn't used to externalise costs. First world nations have environmental protections that largely limit such externalisation, other than for carbon dioxide emissions.

 

[bilby]

Is the philosophical question really “larger” than the economic one? For me, the answer is resounding yes. I don’t look down on people who disagree; some people seem to thrive without ever touching any substance that has not been altered by man. I can’t do that for long.

Of course. But "it feels good to me" is more a religious position than a scientific one; And becomes explicitly a religious position when it's "it feels good to me, so other people should do it".

 

[Elixir]

Growing (or manufacturing) stuff locally is more expensive, largely because it's inefficient - ie requires more fuel - on a per tonne basis at the point of consumption.

Yup. I try to never let that fact escape me. I don’t drive fancy cars or live an otherwise extravagant lifestyle, and probably have a smaller “footprint” than your average American. One of the few luxuries in which I do enthusiastically indulge however, is to grow some of my own food. It takes a lot of support from the manufactured world before I can get to the point of handling soil or pinching off secondary growths with my thumbnail, and I‘d quickly starve if I had to rely exclusively on what I can grow.
But I like it, and it reduces the degree to which I am a menace to society. So sue me.

 

[Elixir]

Is the philosophical question really “larger” than the economic one? For me, the answer is resounding yes. I don’t look down on people who disagree; some people seem to thrive without ever touching any substance that has not been altered by man. I can’t do that for long.

Of course. But "it feels good to me" is more a religious position than a scientific one; And becomes explicitly a religious position when it's "it feels good to me, so other people should do it".

Do you consider your apparent position that more people is good, to be a religious one? If not, then how can my position that it’s not so, be a religious one?

 

[Elixir]

The value to one’s subjective sense of well-being is VERY similar to that of religion, except that the “value” has tangible rather than symbolic components, and consists of repeatable, reliably experienced (excluding “acts of god“ ) enhancements of life experience.
All of which puts it in a completely different category.

Could you identify one or more of these tangible components?

Because I am not seeing any.

Plants, for example, are emergent results of effort and contrived circumstance. They are real (tangible) and miraculous in most plain interpretations of the word. But they don’t require a God, just conducive conditions.
Call it religion, but then you’d be left trying to find grounds to exclude heroin as a religion to junkies, and anything else that people regularly-“religiously” if you will - do and enjoy, those things must be considered as religions as well. I think most people call them hobbies, addictions or avocations though.