The "THREE PROBLEMS" humanity faces

[Hrothbern]

Relative few? Anyone w a decent standard of living including 100% of people reading this are part of the problem.

And everyone not part of the problem wants to be (no one in a sustenance situation, except maybe some of the few tribal people on the planet, wants to stay there)

We are all the 1%, sure the .01% wastes vastly more than us but we can't pin it all on them. Our Amazon purchases, car driving, air travel, having our own apartments, etc are our responsibility.


What does that even mean? Who else is responsible for your lifestyle?


Thats true but everyone wants their kid to have more (use more, consume more, travel more, have access to more) than they did.

No one is saying poor people are the problem in overpopulation, the problem is the myth that we can all become rich whereas in reality the planet is unlikely to even be able to sustain the current level of decadence of humanity.

There may be some theoretical possibility of a utopian future w vertical farms and everyone lives within their means but capitalism has fed us our whole lives the importance of having more, being better than our fellows. To accept a reality where we can all coexist as equals is also theoretically possible but it would take a lot of inner world by the masses (and why would the elites every encourage such a mindstate?)

One of the ways to make clear how big our footprint is per individual of rich countries could be to calculate the max amount of people who could live sustainable on Earth with that rich country footprint we have now.
My first wild-ass guess would be between 0,5% and 5%.

 

[Gori the Grey]

1) Humanity
2) Ah the humanity
3) The Humanites

 

[Patine]

1) Humanity
2) Ah the humanity
3) The Humanites

So, you're a misanthrope, then?

 

[Gori the Grey]

The ones that laugh at my jokes, I like ok.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

One of the ways to make clear how big our footprint is per individual of rich countries could be to calculate the max amount of people who could live sustainable on Earth with that rich country footprint we have now.
My first wild-ass guess would be between 0,5% and 5%.

We do however have solutions or start to see them, fossile fuels can be replaced by renewables, various raw materials can probably be mined from asteroids and so on. However as of right now it don't look bright. CO2 have increased from like 290 PPM pre industrial to 415 PPM and the amount of CO2 produced world wide have gone up, mostly as more and more countries develop. Just the CO2 itself even if ignoring the global warming can be dangerous to humans as it may lower cognitive performance as the amount of CO2 increases.

Many countries with fossile fuel industries like oil don't really seems to have much of a backup plan, so they may be hit hard or have reasons to slow down switch towards renewable energy. I suspect the same can be said about various industries that stand to lose out on reduced consumption or any other change that would hurt their bottomline, there seems to be quite major interest that want to slow down any change towards mitigating global warming.

 

[Hrothbern]

Here the latest Forecast on world population published in The Lancet.
It has as surprise scenario one where the population will peak in 2064 at 9.7 Billion people and then shrink in 2100 to 8.8 Billion people. The usual scenarios predict 10-11 Billion people in 2100.
http://www.thelancet-press.com/emba...hkEA&utm_content=91281057&utm_source=hs_email

And here an article of the New York Times on that article.of The Lancet
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/...t a study published on,to 8.8 billion by 2100.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ah, thanks. If they, and separately, "Anti-Western thought," are two of the three biggest problems with humanity according to @amadeus, than he can just be casually dismissed as a Neo-McCarthyist and an Imperialist pig, and all of his viewpoints can now be seen though the lens of such a narrow and warped view. It's good he's spilled his own guts publicly and committed his own rhetorical suicide here, rather than have to have it dug out his subtle intimations and slip-ups.

Well, given where he is, anti-western thought could mean a lot of things. I know what it sort of meant there 80-100 years ago, even if we acknowledge it was at least partially inspired by a long history of western nations acting badly. I sort of know what it means in the global rising power. He certainly seems like he's generally farther on the individualist rather than collectivist spectrum than you, as a speaker, but then again it's not like he suggested anything crazy, like that people might take up somewhat more gardening as a matter of civic pride and public health.

I'm going to go with

1. Resource depletion, globally
2. Loss of purpose, nationally
3. The fallouts from 1 and 2.

At least as far as the issue of today go. The main problems humanity faces are probably relatively timeless. Cruelty, greed, and indifference in descending order?

 

[Patine]

Well, given where he is, anti-western thought could mean a lot of things. I know what it sort of meant there 80-100 years ago, even if we acknowledge it was at least partially inspired by a long history of western nations acting badly. I sort of know what it means in the global rising power. He certainly seems like he's generally farther on the individualist rather than collectivist spectrum than you, as a speaker, but then again it's not like he suggested anything crazy, like that people might take up somewhat more gardening as a matter of civic pride and public health.

Are you still sore about my Khmer Rouge quip a few years back? I fully admit, here and now, to rest your mind, it was completely and utterly out of proportion and uncalled for of me.

 

[Farm Boy]

Not really sore, you've been kind. But I'm getting a familiar sensation of having accelerated over an unexpected bump in the road having read that.

 

[Narz]

Here the latest Forecast on world population published in The Lancet.
It has as surprise scenario one where the population will peak in 2064 at 9.7 Billion people and then shrink in 2100 to 8.8 Billion people. The usual scenarios predict 10-11 Billion people in 2100.
http://www.thelancet-press.com/emba...hkEA&utm_content=91281057&utm_source=hs_email

And here an article of the New York Times on that article.of The Lancet
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/world/americas/global-population-trends.html#:~:text=But a study published on,to 8.8 billion by 2100.

Thanks for sharing those.

Although I find predictions like this a bit absurd :

"The study’s projections, if borne out, also carry significant consequences for the United States, whose economy is expected to trail China’s in size by 2035. As China’s working-age population declines in the second half of the century, the study said, the United States could reclaim the top spot economically by 2098 — if immigration continues to replenish the American work force."

As if we can really predict anything about the year 2098, inclduing whether there even will still remain nation states known as China and the US.

 

[El_Machinae]

how is any of this overpopulation as opposed to overconsumption by a relative few for things they don't need and resistance to change this system

I don't know if it's 'over-consumption by the relative few'. Is there a cohort where you think that there's sustainable consumption trendlines?
There aren't many areas of the world where sustainable consumption is actually possible, and very few models that can be mimicked. We have too many people and not enough growth of sustainability processes. Right now, every single person is trying to mimick the quality of life of someone slightly higher than them. There's just not enough groundwater and meat for what people are trying to do.

We might be saying the same thing, but the problem isn't so much that some people are unsustainable in their consumption, it's that everyone else is trying to increase their consumption using a similar model.

A frequent retort I use, though, is "If your solution is 'the poor should remain poor', it just doesn't work". This is usually to Westerners complaining about Eastern levels of pollution.

 

[emzie]

1) Climate degradation and warming.

That sums up 95% of my response to this thread. The other 5% being nuclear weapons.

I think I (would have / would) (made / make) a good mom. I don't think I would like raising a child for the future that I'd foresee for them.

 

[Farm Boy]

I guess it's nice we don't live quite so close to starvation as is traditional. Nobody has borne a kid not doomed to die. Doesn't make that easy. Nothing does.

 

[Ferocitus]

Environmental disasters including climate change, massive pollution and humanity.
Religion.
The USA's military/industrial/entertainment complex.

 

[Patine]

Religion.

Religion, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, and has many very good and admirable qualities and ideals, and most the noblest concepts of human society, governance, and ideals of getting along with each other have their original roots in religion, as do many elements that put us, as a species, on a path to achieve more than just subsistence, self-gratification, and brutish violence. Corrupt, unscrupulous, power hungry, and self-indulgent individual people and groups claiming to act in the name of religion (and often representing many of the biggest religions in the world's very poorly - often antithetically and corruptly) are the problem you're almost certainly pointing out, but you, like many others, have been led to believe that the existence of religion is THE problem completely - which is a typical narrative of the cynical, nihilistic, deconstructionist agnostic/atheist crowd who are, themselves, doing no more good, and just as much harm, for the world as the corrupt, malrepresentaitve, heretical "wolves in sheep's clothing," who claim to be acting on behalf of the world's major religions.

 

[El_Machinae]

Wow, I think people should pay more attention to the Future of Life Institute.

It currently costs a few million dollars to engineer a virus.

Quantum computing can crack all modern-day encryption

We are currently handing over massive amounts of our video and personal preferences over to supercomputers

 

[Narz]

and most the noblest concepts of human society, governance, and ideals of getting along with each other have their original roots in religion

I don't buy it.

but you, like many others, have been led to believe that the existence of religion is THE problem completely - which is a typical narrative of the cynical, nihilistic, deconstructionist agnostic/atheist crowd who are, themselves, doing no more good, and just as much harm, for the world as the corrupt, malrepresentaitve, heretical "wolves in sheep's clothing," who claim to be acting on behalf of the world's major religions.

Blah blah blah

The most corrupt, impoverished and violent nations have the highest levels of religiosity and vice-versa.

He never said religion was the problem completely, I recall mention of two other problems.

Me personally, I wouldn't put religion in my top 3, religion is just a symptom of fear and ignorance, its been shown with high levels of health, safety and education religiosity naturally dissappears.

All the militant atheists combined aren't as bad as one Joel Osteen.

A mean atheist might hurt your feelings. A religious con-artist can trick thousands, perhaps even millions of desperate people to give away much of what little they have for something as insubstantial as a prayer.

My buddy's mom neglected him and her other children for years to give money to church hustlers. Its not an uncommon thing.

 

[Narz]

Wow, I think people should pay more attention to the Future of Life Institute.

It currently costs a few million dollars to engineer a virus.

Quantum computing can crack all modern-day encryption

We are currently handing over massive amounts of our video and personal preferences over to supercomputers

So what's the doomsday endgame here?

 

[Patine]

I don't buy it.


Blah blah blah

The most corrupt, impoverished and violent nations have the highest levels of religiosity and vice-versa.

He never said religion was the problem completely, I recall mention of two other problems.

Me personally, I wouldn't put religion in my top 3, religion is just a symptom of fear and ignorance, its been shown with high levels of health, safety and education religiosity naturally dissappears.

Trying to make a vicious, deconstructionist, nihilistic rebuttal of a broad-scale argument going back to the beginning of recorded history by doubling down on the very corrupt liars and demagogues who use false claims of religious authority to lead people astray and do evil things and try to disingenuously trick people into believing they are "righteous," - those I have already condemned - and using solely the modern state of things to counter my millennia-long argument of human social development. That was transparently very clumsy and poorly-worded and -phrased of you. It's obviously you have no idea, at all, what you're really talking about, but are just quoting a few of the simpler crumbs from the Frankfurt School.

 

[Narz]

It's obviously you have no idea, at all, what you're really talking about, but are just quoting a few of the simpler crumbs from the Frankfurt School.

I actually got my degree from there. I miss Germany

In all seriousness you can't rebut my points w random word salad. Religion makes folks dumb and you're proof.