Zardnaar
Deity
Well we're already overpopulated.
From memory the ideal population of the world is around 2 billion which was around WW2 iirc.
Too many monkeys in the zoo
- Thread starter Narz
- Start date
Well we're already overpopulated.
From memory the ideal population of the world is around 2 billion which was around WW2 iirc.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
What is the basis for this claim?
Zardnaar
Deity
It's been a while since I read it but it was assessing consumption, food, impact on the environment etc.
There's not enough resources to go around for a "western" lifestyle at two billion people theoretically mist if the world could have a higher standard of living.
sophie
Break My Heart
Once again on the one hand this is just a circular argument: the world is overpopulated because it’s overpopulated
And on the other, what does “western lifestyle” mean? Single family homes; personal automobile ownership; hour commute to work each way; eating meat with every meal; new phone, computer and tv every 2 years; completely new wardrobe every season? Because there is a huge world of possibilities between that and, like, no electricity, mostly animal-powered transport, eating bugs and widespread famines that everyone seems to imply the other non-eugenics choice is.
And on the other, what does “western lifestyle” mean? Single family homes; personal automobile ownership; hour commute to work each way; eating meat with every meal; new phone, computer and tv every 2 years; completely new wardrobe every season? Because there is a huge world of possibilities between that and, like, no electricity, mostly animal-powered transport, eating bugs and widespread famines that everyone seems to imply the other non-eugenics choice is.
Lexicus
Deity
@schlaufuchs in a History and Theory of Planning course I took I read this paper that argued the US made purposely inefficient use of space and resources as a matter of policy to absorb surplus capital during the Depression.
Zardnaar
Deity
Basically a western lifestyle. Personal car, house, western lifestyle or close to it.
And without depleting the environment in a major way to do it.
I would say it's more than it's a 'mainstream right' position that overpopulation is a myth. Often this is built around the concept that the environment is more robust than we think. But it's also coupled with the idea that Market Forces will encourage innovations at a faster pace than is necessary. Like everyone, they're willing to accept some casualties when it comes to that 'improvement'. Many of these debates are about ignoring the casualties of our own policies while highlighting theirs. The side-effect of that position is that 'because there's no real problem, you don't have to do anything about it'.
There are many political positions that argue that individuals shouldn't be doing more in direct and measurable ways. Many roads to that Rome, but 'thoughts and prayers' are just 'vibes' with other dressing. The problem with that conclusion is that it's self-serving. Any line of introspect that ends in "I'm good enough" should be considered suspect.
I have bad news for you about Western countries' ongoing involvement in stuffing up the environment.
What do I think of 8 billion humans?
25% of the productive capacity of the entire planet is being captured and consumed by humans, directly or indirectly. As a consequence, we're also causing the 5th global mass extinction event that is going on right now. 'Degrowth' isn't a concept most people are familiar with, and many who are despise the very idea. Some of the wealthiest nations with significant concern about the environment are still building new fossil fuel power plants in the midst of all this. I think Agent Smith wasn't far off. We aren't at carrying capacity yet, but if everyone is hoping to live a Western lifestyle we passed it long ago.
25% of the productive capacity of the entire planet is being captured and consumed by humans, directly or indirectly. As a consequence, we're also causing the 5th global mass extinction event that is going on right now. 'Degrowth' isn't a concept most people are familiar with, and many who are despise the very idea. Some of the wealthiest nations with significant concern about the environment are still building new fossil fuel power plants in the midst of all this. I think Agent Smith wasn't far off. We aren't at carrying capacity yet, but if everyone is hoping to live a Western lifestyle we passed it long ago.
Last edited:
It is a good question, even if it's pretty quick to get consensus what a small group means when we say it.
It's not really the 'Western Lifestyle' that's the true upcoming risk (except insofar as we refuse to reinvent what we have as we renew our infrastructure), because other people aren't going to adopt our social choices specifically. But there is a very large design space of 'unsustainable design' that communities could build into as their societies economically grow.
There is a risk that we are mimicked as being their 'desirable outcome'. That definitely won't work out well.
Last edited:
Zardnaar
Deity
Not claiming we're not.
If you had a Thanos that could do 75% snap vs 50% the 75% would be applied universally.
I believe 2 billion was the ideal sustainable number. It's been a while.
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
This might be the confusion. It looks like you're describing the Western Lifestyle.
"And without depleting the environment in a major way to do it."
(oh. Not bumping the thread. It was the calculation of 'lifestyle x population')
Last edited:
Zardnaar
Deity
Well iirc it was how many people the earth can sustainably support.
Either our emissions would drop 75% or overall more people would have a better lifestyle.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
Marxism will not solve any global hunger, shelter or infrastructure issues
Zardnaar
Deity
Marxism will not solve any global hunger, shelter or infrastructure issues
Well it's pretty good at killing people en masse. Even Pol Pot only got 1 in 3 though 3 in 4 is the required number.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
except malthus was wrong
also, sidenote, western consumption patterns are literally only possible on the backs on the productive capacity of the world right now, because of the population we all seem to fear attaining the same living standard
like, where do you think fast fashion and soy for cattle is actually made
2 billion ideal or whatever is selfdefeating because the consumption patterns it's supposed to solve would literally crash western consumption anyways, which will also literally crash anyways at 8 billion
the number is kind of moot, and it's not even practically possible to thanos snap. the infinity gauntlet ain't real
Zardnaar
Deity
I know main point is we passed the sustainable number 100 odd years ago.
Senethro
Overlord
OK. If that's what doesn't work, what does work and what will work?Marxism will not solve any global hunger, shelter or infrastructure issues
Those two are not mutually exclusive, are they?
Anyway, I'm open to arguments that overpopulation is not an issue.
I bristle when someone says we should not mention something not because it isn't true but because where the conclusions might lead.
Yellow vests protests - Wikipedia
I'm sure every country has its own examples.
My point is that as long as everyone goes
"No, you!" nothing gets done.
Change must come from governments, yes, but everyone must be willing to sacrifice something.
