Too many people?

[DBT]

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?

Yes, and given a world population of eight billion plus, what need is there for more? Is it some sort of a competition? The more the merrier?

 

[bilby]

Do you consider your apparent position that more people is good, to be a religious one?

I consider the position that "more people is good" to be a significant distortion of my actual position, which is closer to "more people isn't necessarily bad" and so I don't feel in any way obliged to defend it.

 

[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".

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?

Yes, and given a world population of eight billion plus, what need is there for more? Is it some sort of a competition? The more the merrier?

There's no need for any. The question isn't "should people have children?", it's "should people be told how many children they should have?"

I couldn't care less whether population rises or falls, within very broad limits.

I do care that people think they should be able to decide whether other people have children, or how many they should have.

Population worries are, as always, a distraction from things we really should be worrying about.

 

[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.

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.

OK, one of us has lost track of this discussion.

If you want to grow your own food, that's great.

Where it becomes a religious thing is when you want other people to grow their own food, or when you look down on those who choose not to.

"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.

You seem to be implying that, because you wouldn't want to be removed from the bio-systems that keep people alive, it is somehow bad for other people to want to be removed from those systems.

But IMO, it's just a personal preference.

Taking Heroin isn't a religion; But wanting other people to take Heroin because you enjoy it, and therefore think it is in some fundamental way "good", now that would be a religious position.

Growing food is the same. It's good for people who enjoy that hobby; It's neutral to the environment (or at least, not more harmful than most other hobbies); But it's assuredly not bad that most people don't do it and don't particularly want to do it.

 

[DBT]

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?

Yes, and given a world population of eight billion plus, what need is there for more? Is it some sort of a competition? The more the merrier?

There's no need for any. The question isn't "should people have children?", it's "should people be told how many children they should have?"

I couldn't care less whether population rises or falls, within very broad limits.

I do care that people think they should be able to decide whether other people have children, or how many they should have.

Population worries are, as always, a distraction from things we really should be worrying about.

Some economists see a need for more people as a means to stimulate the economy, growth, more people buying goods, paying for services, etc.

 

[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".

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?

Yes, and given a world population of eight billion plus, what need is there for more? Is it some sort of a competition? The more the merrier?

There's no need for any. The question isn't "should people have children?", it's "should people be told how many children they should have?"

I couldn't care less whether population rises or falls, within very broad limits.

I do care that people think they should be able to decide whether other people have children, or how many they should have.

Population worries are, as always, a distraction from things we really should be worrying about.

Some economists see a need for more people as a means to stimulate the economy, growth, more people buying goods, paying for services, etc.

Some economists are fucking idiots.

This isn't a new phenomenon in the field of economics, which has been infested by idiots from the outset.

 

[DBT]

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?

Yes, and given a world population of eight billion plus, what need is there for more? Is it some sort of a competition? The more the merrier?

There's no need for any. The question isn't "should people have children?", it's "should people be told how many children they should have?"

I couldn't care less whether population rises or falls, within very broad limits.

I do care that people think they should be able to decide whether other people have children, or how many they should have.

Population worries are, as always, a distraction from things we really should be worrying about.

Some economists see a need for more people as a means to stimulate the economy, growth, more people buying goods, paying for services, etc.

Some economists are fucking idiots.

This isn't a new phenomenon in the field of economics, which has been infested by idiots from the outset.

Quite true, sadly.

 

[bilby]

Some economists see a need for more people as a means to stimulate the economy, growth, more people buying goods, paying for services, etc.

Some economists are fucking idiots.

This isn't a new phenomenon in the field of economics, which has been infested by idiots from the outset.

Quite true, sadly.

The idea that the economy should dictate what people do, rather than the other way around, is particularly and spectacularly stupid.

The economy is a means to provide for the needs and wants of the people.

If the economy needs or wants more people, or fewer people, or any particular behaviour from people, then the cart is dragging the horse around.

Though typically when politicians talk about what the economy "needs", they are really talking about what the billionaires want.

I reserve the right not to give shit the first what the billionaires want.

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

... The question isn't "should people have children?", it's "should people be told how many children they should have?"

I couldn't care less whether population rises or falls, within very broad limits.

I do care that people think they should be able to decide whether other people have children, or how many they should have.

Population worries are, as always, a distraction from things we really should be worrying about.

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.

If you want to grow your own food, that's great.

Where it becomes a religious thing is when you want other people to grow their own food, or when you look down on those who choose not to.

"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.

You seem to be implying that, because you wouldn't want to be removed from the bio-systems that keep people alive, it is somehow bad for other people to want to be removed from those systems.

But IMO, it's just a personal preference.

Taking Heroin isn't a religion; But wanting other people to take Heroin because you enjoy it, and therefore think it is in some fundamental way "good", now that would be a religious position.

Growing food is the same. It's good for people who enjoy that hobby; It's neutral to the environment (or at least, not more harmful than most other hobbies); But it's assuredly not bad that most people don't do it and don't particularly want to do it.

Do you consider your apparent position that people should look down on others for doing stuff you look down on others for doing, and people should not tell others what they should do about matters you don't enjoy telling others what they should do about, to be a religious one?

 

[Elixir]

WUT??!!

 

[bilby]

Do you consider your apparent position that people should look down on others for doing stuff you look down on others for doing, and people should not tell others what they should do about matters you don't enjoy telling others what they should do about, to be a religious one?

I'm pretty sure that's not my apparent position to very many people (indeed, I would think there are plenty of people who would struggle to even parse it), and I am certain that it's not my actual position, so I really don't feel any need to comment.

 

[Elixir]

Growing food is the same. It's good for people who enjoy that hobby; It's neutral to the environment (or at least, not more harmful than most other hobbies)

Not sure how detrimental (or not) my own growing habit is, but it is a chosen indulgence I don’t feel guilty about. If others don’t want to grow any food, I have no compulsion or impulse to sell them on growing food. But if they ask, I’m happy to relate the ways that I feel it benefits me. My belief that those benefits are important is not religious in any sense of proselytizing or imposing thoughts or actions upon others. I don’t think that’s different from most people who grow some of their own food.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fine. If you think a person may be promoting genocide, even though he has not said that, ask.

If the person insists that he is against genocide, as I have persistently done throughout this thread, then drop it.

The problem is that you continue to handwave away the problem. He is calling you on this handwaving--you say you are not advocating genocide but you present no other meaningful approach.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

At any rate, my concern is strictly for the welfare of all, especially the next generation. I think we are in severe ecological overshoot. Technological improvements will definitely help, but those improvements will probably be overwhelmed with many people seeking increased prosperity, and thus cancelling out gains from technology. I see that there are fair and moral voluntary ways to limit population more, and that should be an important part of any plan.

The problem with your overshoot argument is that nobody has provided a solid answer to what is not overshoot. To be sustainable over the long term you need 100% renewable resources--and nobody's provided any meaningful way for this to be accomplished.

 

[abaddon]

There's more wilderness worldwide today than there was two hundred years ago, because people have mostly moved to big cities. Big, crowded cities are great for the environment, bit perversely give their inhabitants the false impression that the wilderness is vanishing - it's not vanishing, people just don't visit it as much as they used to.

Earth's losing wilderness at a fast pace. And 200 years ago, most land on earth wasn't even farmland yet.

See:

Five maps that reveal the world’s remaining wilderness

Zooming in on deforestation and other wild habitat loss can help us work out how best to protect wilderness.

theconversation.com

Only 23% of the Earth Can Be Considered "Wilderness," Warns Biologist

Human world domination is almost complete, and that's not a good thing.

www.inverse.com

"... because people have mostly moved to big cities..."

Wildernesses are areas largely unaffected by human development, not areas where people are less crowded.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Crowded cities are a good thing. They mean people are only damaging a small area.

And they are causing less total damage because less moving around is needed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

But centralized production reduces impact. A bunch of little factories will make a lot more impact than one big one.

And shipping distance means a lot less than the means of shipping. To ship a product around the world by cargo ship is less impact than to ship it across town in your car.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Good point. In a sane regulatory environment cost is a very good estimate of impact on any commodity good. (It fails in places with atrocious environmental regulation.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Liking it is a reason to do it, the environment is not. We have a bunch of fruit trees--not because it's an environmental advantage (living in the desert it almost certainly isn't) but because what you can buy in the store is filtered by what is durable enough to actually be sold in the store. There are many delicate types of fruit that will simply never make it to market and even with comparable varieties you can generally leave them on your trees longer than the farmer can.

 

[Merle]

The problem is that you continue to handwave away the problem. He is calling you on this handwaving--you say you are not advocating genocide but you present no other meaningful approach.

Flapdoodle. I have addressed this many times. See, for instance https://iidb.org/threads/too-many-people.27312/page-21#post-1102262

Do you have any questions?