Too many monkeys in the zoo

[El_Machinae]

If we're positing future technology, then any discussion about slowing growth are a waste of time. The mechanisms of growth will be completely different by then. After certain stages of progress, aging but not dying becomes a mechanism of population growth.

You're better off pushing the potential improvements or helping delay deaths until those improvements arrive.

 

[Yeekim]

I might counter: indeed, so why the nonsense about "overpopulation"? Isn't the real problem "underwealth" and "underpower" for like 2/3rds of the global population?

Because population growth is the metric by which we need to judge whether people are sufficiently wealthy and empowered.

 

[Senethro]

Because population growth is the metric by which we need to judge whether people are sufficiently wealthy and empowered.

Ok so? If pop growth is the problem, you're still incorrect to call it overpopulation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hmmm, wealth is how you determine if people can afford to pivot to sustainable consumption. Slowing population growth, or the need for it, is a function of that number. The rising wealth might affect population growth rates, but it's the total wealth required to pivot that matters.

But the deaths that result from overpopulation occurred from the births. And I guess births force the rejiggering of the pie if total consumption is unsustainable and will be fought over.

 

[Yeekim]

Ok so? If pop growth is the problem, you're still incorrect to call it overpopulation.

As I said, we're already using resources at twice the sustainable rate.

 

[Senethro]

As I said, we're already using resources at twice the sustainable rate.

Sooooo........ overconsumption?

 

[Yeekim]

Sooooo........ overconsumption?

If you insist.

 

[AmazonQueen]

If you insist.

Overpopulation is a means of blaming the 3rd world for the 1st worlds overconsumption. Those starving millions in Africa aren't the ones using resources at twice the sustainable rate.

 

[El_Machinae]

Holy crap, it's just the same argument over and over and over.

Stepwise steps to get us sustainable?
Stepwise steps to slow the starvation until we are?
A discussion of how much quality of life will have to drop, for whom, to become sustainable?

Each aspect is multidimensional, which means that there are critical paths for each, which means there is shortest critical path for each.

Some steps will be placeholders, some steps will be temporarily necessary. Some steps have to be done for purely political reasons. Some steps have to be done entirely because nature doesn't care about our opinion.

And enough with pretending that other people think that poor people should die, poor people should remain poor, and that it's always somebody else who should be 100% responsible.

 

[Lexicus]

pretending

Not pretending

 

[Narz]

I might counter: indeed, so why the nonsense about "overpopulation"?

You don't agree w our definition of overpopulation therefore your strawman & putting words in people's mouths is fine?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Holy crap, it's just the same argument over and over and over.

Stepwise steps to get us sustainable?
Stepwise steps to slow the starvation until we are?
A discussion of how much quality of life will have to drop, for whom, to become sustainable?

Each aspect is multidimensional, which means that there are critical paths for each, which means there is shortest critical path for each.

Some steps will be placeholders, some steps will be temporarily necessary. Some steps have to be done for purely political reasons. Some steps have to be done entirely because nature doesn't care about our opinion.

And enough with pretending that other people think that poor people should die, poor people should remain poor, and that it's always somebody else who should be 100% responsible.

So long as people pretend the problem is too many children in the 3rd world rather than the West's overconsumption we aren't dealing with the root of the problem.

 

[Narz]

But the deaths that result from overpopulation occurred from the births.

@ the end of the day those saying overpopulation isn't a problem & future technology will solve it aren't actually thinking of the suffering humans will have to endure in the coming decades.

They think we're blaming the global poor (altho global south seems to be their catchword) when actually the goal is to reduce their suffering.

 

[Senethro]

A problem exists. We're not any flavour of denialist.

But you should not describe the problem using a term that implies if some people were to be vanished, the problem would be solved.

Approach it from a different angle. If "overpopulation" is real, then a correct population must exist. How would you identify this correct population? If you cannot, then how do you even know what overpopulation is?

 

[El_Machinae]

But you should not describe the problem using a term that implies if some people were to be vanished, the problem would be solved.

'Vanished' is a mealy word, because it's not what people are saying or hearing. Some people are only hearing 'killed'. The lack of a person not created is not the same thing as a person killed. And some people are explicitly not saying 'killed' but getting imagined as if they were. So let's stick with 'killed', so that I know that the person isn't worth talking to. They can talk to someone else.

I would never disagree that it's fundamentally about some over-consumption at least at the global level, local overpopulation is solvable with solving mal-distribution (until it's not). So let's talk about that.

Here's my position: the problem can either be solved by a rearrangement of consumption or it cannot (my position: it cannot). If it can be solved by rearrangement, then it's a discussion about whose perceived QoL needs to drop to keep other people alive. If it cannot be solved by rearrangement of consumption, then what is the total investment required in order to get us there, and whose QoL needs to drop (and for how long) to get us there?

But there's even more than that.
- will effective rearrangement today continue to work for tomorrow's population level?
- can over-consumption eventually create the innovations that create a sustainable future?
- how to choose between a tomorrow-death vs. a future-death?


Edit: sorry, the forum software was being weird every time I refreshed. And damnit, my reply to Narz has been deleted. It was a few paragraphs

 

[Akka]

So long as people pretend the problem is too many children in the 3rd world rather than the West's overconsumption we aren't dealing with the root of the problem.

I'm sorry, why only one of these would be a problem ?

 

[AmazonQueen]

I'm sorry, why only one of these would be a problem ?

We know the solution to too many children in the 3rd world, we are just too cheap to apply it. It won't solve the problem of overconsumption.

2.3 billion people in low income countries account for 3% of consumption.
1 billion people in high income countries account for 80% of consumption.
The US alone accounts for 33% of the worlds consumption.

Those figures are in monetary terms but however you measure it rich countries with a relatively low share of the worlds population use vastly more resources than poor countries.

https://archive.globalpolicy.org/so...rce-consumption-occurs-in-rich-countries.html

 

[Akka]

We know the solution to too many children in the 3rd world, we are just too cheap to apply it.

Okay, so we agree that it's also a problem, which (like most problems in the world) isn't fixed because of shortsighted and selfish greed, and not that it's not a problem ?

It won't solve the problem of overconsumption.

2.3 billion people in low income countries account for 3% of consumption.
1 billion people in high income countries account for 80% of consumption.
The US alone accounts for 33% of the worlds consumption.

Those figures are in monetary terms but however you measure it rich countries with a relatively low share of the worlds population use vastly more resources than poor countries.

https://archive.globalpolicy.org/so...rce-consumption-occurs-in-rich-countries.html

Yes, but the goal is to reduce waste and keep population to a sustainable level with maximum comfort for everyone, not to reduce the level of comfort endlessly to accomodate an ever-increasing population.

 

[Yeekim]

We know the solution to too many children in the 3rd world, we are just too cheap to apply it. It won't solve the problem of overconsumption.

2.3 billion people in low income countries account for 3% of consumption.
1 billion people in high income countries account for 80% of consumption.
The US alone accounts for 33% of the worlds consumption.

Those figures are in monetary terms but however you measure it rich countries with a relatively low share of the worlds population use vastly more resources than poor countries.

https://archive.globalpolicy.org/so...rce-consumption-occurs-in-rich-countries.html

Fair point, but note that:
-using monetary terms skews the picture quite a bit;
- this data is from 2004, when there was 1.6 billion fewer of us;
- those poor countries quite justifiably wish to raise their living standards and resource consumption rate. Keep in mind how the cure for population growth is better education and more wealth...

 

[Senethro]

Comparison: Portrayal of "Immigrants" as The Problem. A group of people are hugely and savagely villified, when the actual problem are the push, pull and disruptive factors that cause their movement.