Can't get more radical than closing down.
Resource cost = number of consumers × amount of resources consumed by each, so no.
Too many monkeys in the zoo
- Thread starter Narz
- Start date
Lexicus
Deity
So a compromise solution? Abolish 50% of capitalism and euthanize half the global south's population?
How did we get from "overpopulation is a problem" to "we must euthanize the global south to solve it"?
To me it reads like an intellectual surrender to fascism. That's why it irks me so much.
livinginaz
Seven Ages of Man
I suspect that excepting a cataclysmic event, the world population at the end of this century will be about 4-6 billion. Developed countries will continue to see poor replacement rate and the old population will die. More countries, but not many will slip under replacement rate. There will be mass starvation in Africa and possibly South America, which will dampen Africa’s overpopulation. I do not see Africa developing successfully in this century if corruption is not tamped down and funds urinated away (and it will take miracles for the corruption to end).
I think China will suffer population decrease as well but they may stabilize before it causes a major impact. I don’t know about India. Global warming will happen and probably will contribute to all of the above. I do not suspect that there will be any intervention to prevent overpopulation because it will decrease on its own starting probably within 40-50 years. Euthanasia should not even be on the table in my opinion.
I think China will suffer population decrease as well but they may stabilize before it causes a major impact. I don’t know about India. Global warming will happen and probably will contribute to all of the above. I do not suspect that there will be any intervention to prevent overpopulation because it will decrease on its own starting probably within 40-50 years. Euthanasia should not even be on the table in my opinion.
Sure you can. "non-profit".
I asked up thread what percentage of GDP would need to be retasked to get us on to a sustainable path. Forbidding people from doing harm is only half of the solution, because we also want to allow people to do the things they want to do and to achieve better comfort per unit work.
Some people think it could be done with the profits that they don't see, ignoring the ginormous profits they do see that are unsustainable.
Nearly everyone will, given the choice, vote to increase net destruction in exchange for short-term gratification. And they will vote that other people can't. And then they'll argue why their choice is okay, but no one else's is. And because the damage is being measured at the statistical level, everyone can let their eyes glass over and ignore the fact that damage is fungible and spending needs to be counted twice when talking about efficacy.
There is a political argument. But even that can only go so far. You can eat at ethnic restaurants all you want in order to be non-racist, but no amount of restaurant eating will stop the Revolutionary Guard from beating women.
The thread is about overpopulation. Both China and India have stopped exports of food along certain dimensions. Sure, there are Western companies that are currently selling food into China that are unsustainable. But these regions have also grown from historical populations to where they need imports during a shock.
Think about a counterfactual, where no region was desperate for imports. Obviously, that counterfactual is less overpopulated. But as soon as you have regions that are desperate for imports, you know that there's a warning sign. Redistribution is obviously a potential solution, but it's obviously less optimistic.
Overpopulation is an interesting state of being. When I put the third dozen fish into an aquarium, it's overpopulated as soon as I put them in. But you prove that the overpopulation has occurred once they start dying. The person running the experiment tends not to suffer anywhere nearly as much as the entities who test the question.
Some people think it could be done with the profits that they don't see, ignoring the ginormous profits they do see that are unsustainable.
Nearly everyone will, given the choice, vote to increase net destruction in exchange for short-term gratification. And they will vote that other people can't. And then they'll argue why their choice is okay, but no one else's is. And because the damage is being measured at the statistical level, everyone can let their eyes glass over and ignore the fact that damage is fungible and spending needs to be counted twice when talking about efficacy.
There is a political argument. But even that can only go so far. You can eat at ethnic restaurants all you want in order to be non-racist, but no amount of restaurant eating will stop the Revolutionary Guard from beating women.
The thread is about overpopulation. Both China and India have stopped exports of food along certain dimensions. Sure, there are Western companies that are currently selling food into China that are unsustainable. But these regions have also grown from historical populations to where they need imports during a shock.
Think about a counterfactual, where no region was desperate for imports. Obviously, that counterfactual is less overpopulated. But as soon as you have regions that are desperate for imports, you know that there's a warning sign. Redistribution is obviously a potential solution, but it's obviously less optimistic.
Overpopulation is an interesting state of being. When I put the third dozen fish into an aquarium, it's overpopulated as soon as I put them in. But you prove that the overpopulation has occurred once they start dying. The person running the experiment tends not to suffer anywhere nearly as much as the entities who test the question.
Lexicus
Deity
What is the solution to "too many humans exist"??
And talk about "intellectual surrender to fascism" - framing the existence of humans as a problem to be solved is basically two-thirds of fascism already...
Non-profit cattle-raising requires neither water nor pastureland?
So according to you, the Earth must be able to support infinite amount of humans, because if it can not, the only solution is fascism.
Lexicus
Deity
Given infinite time, why not? Any other pointless fantasy scenarios to go over?
Narz
keeping it real
You might be taken more seriously if you didn't talk to your imaginary enemies & instead addressed those talking to you
Narz
keeping it real
Good to hear a prediction.
I dont think anyone here would support forced euthanasia altho i think the terminally ill should have the option
It's a problem for every other human species except domestic animals & the parasites who prey upon them.
If we can't look @ our wastefulness as a problem to be solved mother earth will solve for us
Last edited:
I didn't say there'd be no costs. But we run pretty much everything for profits to exceed those costs. That's what drives a lot of the exploitation and overconsumption - the need to sell more to make the little line on a graph go higher, and keep your shareholders happy.
Remove the need for the exploitation and overconsumption, and it goes away. But it's radical, because people start yelling communism or other dumb stuff. Just the very idea of "don't turn a profit" is in today's society either seen as charity, or absurdity.
Opinions you don't like remain opinions nomatter how much you don't like them. Something something imaginary enemies, and so on.
So there is an actual carrying capacity somewhere?
How high is it and how do we stop the population growth before we get there?
Narz
keeping it real
Prediction I should've said like opinions about what might happen rather than saying it's taboo or antihuman to even discuss
Lexicus
Deity
I have no idea how high it is; it is probably higher than any of us imagine due to unrealized technological advances.
We already know how to stop population growth: make people wealthier and liberate women from the domination of men.
Just as long as I don't have to eat the Irish.
There are still limits to what one can suggest in a polite discussion.
In poor countries children are your insurance against old age. If many of them die in infancy you are encouraged to have as many as possible so that you will have someone to take care of you in your old age.
Better healthcare is the best way to discourage large families.
Operative word being "unrealized". Meanwhile we're using up resources at twice the sustainable rate.
Indeed, so why the nonsense about euthanizing half the global South?
Lexicus
Deity
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?
