But people care about sex more than they care about children.
And regulations still allow you to have both sex AND children.
I mean,seriously,do you need more than 2 children? Are you seriously telling me there is going to be some terrible fucking hole in your heart because " I NEED 4 CHILDREN GOD DAMMIT 2 IS NOT ENOUGH"?
It isn't something based on reason so reasonable arguments aren't going to help you understand it.
Most people don't use reason and good logic. The world would be a lot less fucked up if they did for a start.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
What would happen if 6,000,000,000 billion people suddenly started driving cars and using resources at the same level as Americans?
It seems pretty obvious to me that the planet can't support every person in the world having real access to the same standard of living as the United States. If we're cool with that injustice, then there's no such thing as overpopulation right now. But if we're not, overpopulation is a huge problem.
I don't like framing the problem as overpopulation. Overpopulation is not the problem. Overconsumption is the problem.
I like this framing, since the whole Malthus' issue isn't really relevant anymore (and the UN had projected we're to reach 9-10 billion by the end of this century before world population stabilizes [though I imagine this has some assumptions about overall levels of development built in but that's a digression]).
Though I imagine even this problem might be solved through technological progress. Either through more/different resource exploitation or extraplanetary resource extraction. Depending on the time scale involved in wanting to 'solve' the problem, anyway.
Peak oil isn't really a problem -- there's enough to get us through until the switch to electricity in cars and more efficient methods of producing said electricity (nuclear primarily, solar, wind, etc). Most proper estimates give us 50 or 60 years, maybe 80 or 90 at reasonable prices if we get good methods of extracting oil from shale.
The peak oil dieoff theory involves oil being required to create food, despite nations with 50+ million people in Africa, significantly more densly populated than the US, that never experienced the green revolution. Yes there's starving people in placed like Congo but their population is still rising.
Peak oil is an economic problem for the first world, not an existential problem (for sources look at how much America's oil consumption dropped per capita after the oil shock of the 70s, and realize that in the event of a crisis the same thing will happen - we can use less, much less). I fear it might fuck large swaths of India in the ass though.
the thing about procreation is that most of it is instinctual. It has to be. We are smart enough to dumb ourselves out of existence if it werent for the fact that children flicks a very ancient switch deep in our brains.
So it is impossible to come up with a regulation for this kind of thing that wont be unpopular. Trying to make such a regulation popular is a fools game. So it wont happen until it has to, and most people are not going to get to have a say if it wants to be successful. Because most people can't see beyond next week.
Not necessarily. Just target a hated minority.
You've completely lost me. Please explain how targetting a hated minority will result in the person doing the hating support not being allowed to have a child of their own.
No no, the point is you enforce population regulation on some minority that the majority dislikes so that the people doing the hating don't have to endure such regulation.
What would happen if 6,000,000,000 billion people suddenly started driving cars and using resources at the same level as Americans?
It seems pretty obvious to me that the planet can't support every person in the world having real access to the same standard of living as the United States. If we're cool with that injustice, then there's no such thing as overpopulation right now. But if we're not, overpopulation is a huge problem.
I don't like framing the problem as overpopulation. Overpopulation is not the problem. Overconsumption is the problem.
While it's true that we could curb out consumption dramatically and still be happy as soon as you frame it as overcomsumption your pretty much advocating we lower our standard of living.
Not necessarily.
Does walking 15 minutes to work rather than driving 60 minutes lower your standard of living? How about taking public transit?
Does eating more vegetables and less red meat lower your standard of living?
Those are two clear examples where reducing consumption actually improves your standard of living. At least, it improves it by any objective standard. There are plenty of people who think that eating a salad instead of a hamburger is a reduction in "standard of living" but that is purely a matter of preference, and we can't allow any preference no matter how silly or personal to dictate what "standard of living" means.
If we look at the problem in basic objective terms, such as disease rates, longevity, leisure time, nutrition, availability of housing and education, and so forth, then I believe that we can adopt more sustainable lifestyles, bolstered by greener technology, without dramatically impacting our quality of life.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
KlykaDO you have anySPARE BATTERIES?Registered Userregular
But people care about sex more than they care about children.
And regulations still allow you to have both sex AND children.
I mean,seriously,do you need more than 2 children? Are you seriously telling me there is going to be some terrible fucking hole in your heart because " I NEED 4 CHILDREN GOD DAMMIT 2 IS NOT ENOUGH"?
It isn't something based on reason so reasonable arguments aren't going to help you understand it.
Most people don't use reason and good logic. The world would be a lot less fucked up if they did for a start.
Yeah but,I mean, even if you are a stupid couple without reason, you WILL understand that if you have more than 2 children,you will be punished.
And you can't tell me those people are gonna have more than 2 children. MAYBE once they'll go astray and then get kicked down by the punishment and realize "ok, we can just fuck with a condom on or I get a vasectomy or whatever".
I just don't see ANYONE who is living under that rule going "but I really, really NEED more than 2 children".
Klyka on
SC2 EU ID Klyka.110
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
Yes the other solution is more efficient energy creation and better technology but even then, even with a perfect use of resources, we will run out of space eventually.
Klyka man you have too much faith in people. You don't need a good reason to "need" something. A need is a fundamental thing, people will happily just start off with "I need it" without anything else underneath. People will claim they need it even if you push them to the point where they can't articulate why. And if you do they will cut you off, ignore you, or otherwise fail to comprehend their lack of a good reason. There's a lot of people like that and politics works by listening to a majority. So they do have power.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
What would happen if 6,000,000,000 billion people suddenly started driving cars and using resources at the same level as Americans?
It seems pretty obvious to me that the planet can't support every person in the world having real access to the same standard of living as the United States. If we're cool with that injustice, then there's no such thing as overpopulation right now. But if we're not, overpopulation is a huge problem.
I don't like framing the problem as overpopulation. Overpopulation is not the problem. Overconsumption is the problem.
I like this framing, since the whole Malthus' issue isn't really relevant anymore (and the UN had projected we're to reach 9-10 billion by the end of this century before world population stabilizes [though I imagine this has some assumptions about overall levels of development built in but that's a digression]).
Though I imagine even this problem might be solved through technological progress. Either through more/different resource exploitation or extraplanetary resource extraction. Depending on the time scale involved in wanting to 'solve' the problem, anyway.
Has anyone utilized the phrase "carrying capacity" yet?
Whichever pairing we use (overpopulation / average consumption) or (average population / over consumption) the presumed fact of the matter is that the Earth can only produce X.
When the needs of the species on the planet exceed X then, well, we be fucked.
Maybe we could have less babies AND eat less shit.
_J_ on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
My major beef with overpopulation is slightly complex in that it's targeted at our economic "axioms". Most people seem to think it's impossible to have a functioning economy that doesn't depend on constant growth of population.
I've never really seen any good argument as to why this has to be so that doesn't amount to "we haven't thought of another option so....".
Time to start thinking maybe? That's how you come up with new stuff. You put effort into creating it.
If you could fix this economic shortsightedness you'd path the way for a lot of reform on population. As it is a capitalist government will institute birth control around about the same time as it rolls out the hammer and sickle flags.
Economics tries to make positive statements. Politics takes the positive statements of economics for the purpose of backing normative statements.
"We need more people because more people means more demand and more production to fulfill demand which is good for the working man" That's saying it is desirable to have higher demand in and of itself, and that's what you hear politicians saying, or popular economist pundits, not your academic economist.
So what would an academic economist say? I'm actually quite bad at economics because, well, it's math. I get the theory but the whole practical application is all you know @_@
The academic wouldn't say anything about it being good or bad, merely increased demand could result in increased production of supply. No comment on whether this is good or bad or an eventuality.
Yes, but surely there are ways an economy can function without this increased demand requirement. What about an economy that doesn't grow but merely stays stable? Isn't there theoretical economics like there is weird fantasy realms of math that do all this cool shit (that I don't understand unless it's explained to me very very slowly) and sometimes someone comes out of there with a cool idea?
Sometimes, but most cool ideas from pure mathematical economics are self contained. See Kurgman and inteplanetary speed of light travel and interest rates.
mrt144 on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
You can modify the planet's carrying capacity through technology, so it's not really a static overwhelming limitation on human progress. This was in fact one of the major oversights of Malthus' theories.
Yes the other solution is more efficient energy creation and better technology but even then, even with a perfect use of resources, we will run out of space eventually.
Ehh, I'm not entirely sure space is that big of an issue. Assuming population rates stabilize, which everything seems to point to (or at least a drastic slowing down) with development progress then space doesn't seem that much of an obstacle. Plus with terraforming technology/land reclamation/urban design changing you can still find new space for people.
You can modify the planet's carrying capacity through technology, so it's not really a static overwhelming limitation on human progress. This was in fact one of the major oversights of Malthus' theories.
Sure but how much? Is relying on technology a good idea? Isn't that going to increase energy usage rates overall?
You know what is a horrible blight on society? Cities. Complete waste of energy. Packing a bunch of people ina small space and ferrying food into them at huge cost.
I like cities, but they're still terrible.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
We've overshot the earth's carrying capacity many times already through technology. Fuck by the 1970s projections we ran out of food and water 10 years ago and are all dead.
But people care about sex more than they care about children.
And regulations still allow you to have both sex AND children.
I mean,seriously,do you need more than 2 children? Are you seriously telling me there is going to be some terrible fucking hole in your heart because " I NEED 4 CHILDREN GOD DAMMIT 2 IS NOT ENOUGH"?
It isn't something based on reason so reasonable arguments aren't going to help you understand it.
Most people don't use reason and good logic. The world would be a lot less fucked up if they did for a start.
Yeah but,I mean, even if you are a stupid couple without reason, you WILL understand that if you have more than 2 children,you will be punished.
And you can't tell me those people are gonna have more than 2 children. MAYBE once they'll go astray and then get kicked down by the punishment and realize "ok, we can just fuck with a condom on or I get a vasectomy or whatever".
I just don't see ANYONE who is living under that rule going "but I really, really NEED more than 2 children".
It's not impossible. China's taxation benefit/legal penalty system, while extremely controversial, actually works. China's growth rate is 0.554%, lower than that of the US. I have no doubt that the Beijing Government (and pretty much every single young Chinese adult, for that matter) sleeps a lot better at night knowing that it's that, instead of 2.75% (what it was in 1971).
You can modify the planet's carrying capacity through technology, so it's not really a static overwhelming limitation on human progress. This was in fact one of the major oversights of Malthus' theories.
Sure but how much? Is relying on technology a good idea? Isn't that going to increase energy rates overall?
It's hard, really, to predict technological effects of unknown technologies on current problems. Though depending on the timeframes we're talking about (let's say a century and us reaching the 9-10 billion projected) then I'd imagine we'd have already made significant inroads in fusion such that energy isn't as much a problem.
Yes the other solution is more efficient energy creation and better technology but even then, even with a perfect use of resources, we will run out of space eventually.
Klyka man you have too much faith in people. You don't need a good reason to "need" something. A need is a fundamental thing, people will happily just start off with "I need it" without anything else underneath. People will claim they need it even if you push them to the point where they can't articulate why. And if you do they will cut you off, ignore you, or otherwise fail to comprehend their lack of a good reason. There's a lot of people like that and politics works by listening to a majority. So they do have power.
I thought politics works by telling the people what you WILL do and then doing what you WANT to do.
Also,it's not like votes really hold THAT much power. If the people in charge and the organs needed to run the country,especially law enforcement (also the military,of course) all decide that "yeah,your votes don't really matter anymore" then those votes don't matter. Sure,dictatorship/despotism/whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that the votes are just worth what is allowed.
Of course dealing with the riots etc.. that are bound to happen and all the other ugliness,yeah that's the stuff that keeps it from happening.
Klyka on
SC2 EU ID Klyka.110
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
Oh I'm sure it would work, and I do actually support something like that.
I'm just saying don't expect everybody to be happy about it. Don't even try.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
You can modify the planet's carrying capacity through technology, so it's not really a static overwhelming limitation on human progress. This was in fact one of the major oversights of Malthus' theories.
Sure but how much? Is relying on technology a good idea? Isn't that going to increase energy usage rates overall?
You know what is a horrible blight on society? Cities. Complete waste of energy. Packing a bunch of people ina small space and ferrying food into them at huge cost.
I like cities, but they're still terrible.
Packing a bunch of people into a small space saves on heating and transportation bills and allows for greater specialization given the larger population.
They're like, the best thing for society.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
But people care about sex more than they care about children.
And regulations still allow you to have both sex AND children.
I mean,seriously,do you need more than 2 children? Are you seriously telling me there is going to be some terrible fucking hole in your heart because " I NEED 4 CHILDREN GOD DAMMIT 2 IS NOT ENOUGH"?
It isn't something based on reason so reasonable arguments aren't going to help you understand it.
Most people don't use reason and good logic. The world would be a lot less fucked up if they did for a start.
Yeah but,I mean, even if you are a stupid couple without reason, you WILL understand that if you have more than 2 children,you will be punished.
And you can't tell me those people are gonna have more than 2 children. MAYBE once they'll go astray and then get kicked down by the punishment and realize "ok, we can just fuck with a condom on or I get a vasectomy or whatever".
I just don't see ANYONE who is living under that rule going "but I really, really NEED more than 2 children".
It's not impossible. China's taxation benefit/legal penalty system, while extremely controversial, actually works. China's growth rate is 0.554%, lower than that of the US.
But where would you rather live for the rest of your life?
mrt144 on
0
Options
KlykaDO you have anySPARE BATTERIES?Registered Userregular
But people care about sex more than they care about children.
And regulations still allow you to have both sex AND children.
I mean,seriously,do you need more than 2 children? Are you seriously telling me there is going to be some terrible fucking hole in your heart because " I NEED 4 CHILDREN GOD DAMMIT 2 IS NOT ENOUGH"?
It isn't something based on reason so reasonable arguments aren't going to help you understand it.
Most people don't use reason and good logic. The world would be a lot less fucked up if they did for a start.
Yeah but,I mean, even if you are a stupid couple without reason, you WILL understand that if you have more than 2 children,you will be punished.
And you can't tell me those people are gonna have more than 2 children. MAYBE once they'll go astray and then get kicked down by the punishment and realize "ok, we can just fuck with a condom on or I get a vasectomy or whatever".
I just don't see ANYONE who is living under that rule going "but I really, really NEED more than 2 children".
It's not impossible. China's taxation benefit/legal penalty system, while extremely controversial, actually works. China's growth rate is 0.554%, lower than that of the US.
But where would you rather live for the rest of your life?
If you show me a country without any children in it that has the same living standard as my current one, I would move to that place in an instant.
Klyka on
SC2 EU ID Klyka.110
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
You can modify the planet's carrying capacity through technology, so it's not really a static overwhelming limitation on human progress. This was in fact one of the major oversights of Malthus' theories.
yes. but a neoclassical retort should always have the prefix: hopefully, blah blah technology etc.
The neomathusian is here to remind us that: maybe not...
let me add that...
Drinking water, is what i would say our next limiting factor will be.
Desalination on a larger scale would fix that.*
Of course, desalination likes to draw lots of power so in my ideal world I'd couple it with fusion.
* ignoring the unknown effects of massive desalination on sea levels.
You can modify the planet's carrying capacity through technology, so it's not really a static overwhelming limitation on human progress. This was in fact one of the major oversights of Malthus' theories.
Sure but how much? Is relying on technology a good idea? Isn't that going to increase energy usage rates overall?
You know what is a horrible blight on society? Cities. Complete waste of energy. Packing a bunch of people ina small space and ferrying food into them at huge cost.
I like cities, but they're still terrible.
What? No. Cities are good. There are economies of scale with conservation. It is far easier to deal with concentrated waste than it is dispersed waste. Transportation costs for raw foodstuffs are almost exceedingly small.
Having individuals farming their own crops would be awful.
Saammiel on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
But people care about sex more than they care about children.
And regulations still allow you to have both sex AND children.
I mean,seriously,do you need more than 2 children? Are you seriously telling me there is going to be some terrible fucking hole in your heart because " I NEED 4 CHILDREN GOD DAMMIT 2 IS NOT ENOUGH"?
It isn't something based on reason so reasonable arguments aren't going to help you understand it.
Most people don't use reason and good logic. The world would be a lot less fucked up if they did for a start.
Yeah but,I mean, even if you are a stupid couple without reason, you WILL understand that if you have more than 2 children,you will be punished.
And you can't tell me those people are gonna have more than 2 children. MAYBE once they'll go astray and then get kicked down by the punishment and realize "ok, we can just fuck with a condom on or I get a vasectomy or whatever".
I just don't see ANYONE who is living under that rule going "but I really, really NEED more than 2 children".
It's not impossible. China's taxation benefit/legal penalty system, while extremely controversial, actually works. China's growth rate is 0.554%, lower than that of the US.
But where would you rather live for the rest of your life?
If you show me a country without any children in it that has the same living standard as my current one, I would move to that place in an instant.
Same, but I can't really tolerate the China Does This and See How Great They're Doing defense of most things.
But people care about sex more than they care about children.
And regulations still allow you to have both sex AND children.
I mean,seriously,do you need more than 2 children? Are you seriously telling me there is going to be some terrible fucking hole in your heart because " I NEED 4 CHILDREN GOD DAMMIT 2 IS NOT ENOUGH"?
It isn't something based on reason so reasonable arguments aren't going to help you understand it.
Most people don't use reason and good logic. The world would be a lot less fucked up if they did for a start.
Yeah but,I mean, even if you are a stupid couple without reason, you WILL understand that if you have more than 2 children,you will be punished.
And you can't tell me those people are gonna have more than 2 children. MAYBE once they'll go astray and then get kicked down by the punishment and realize "ok, we can just fuck with a condom on or I get a vasectomy or whatever".
I just don't see ANYONE who is living under that rule going "but I really, really NEED more than 2 children".
It's not impossible. China's taxation benefit/legal penalty system, while extremely controversial, actually works. China's growth rate is 0.554%, lower than that of the US.
But where would you rather live for the rest of your life?
If you show me a country without any children in it that has the same living standard as my current one, I would move to that place in an instant.
Same, but I can't really tolerate the China Does This and See How Great They're Doing defense of most things.
Me personally? It's hard to say, given that I'm a Taiwanese national (if you think I'm going to be living in the United States for the rest of my life, you're probably being unrealistically optimistic). Plus, I live in the South--the poor South, not the wealthy dainty Dixie south. In 30 years, this place could be a shit-hole compared to anywhere in China, the way things are progressing.
Where would the the environment prefer I live for the rest of my life? China, with close to no doubt. Even with their own environmental disaster, unless I professionally drive SUVs in circles and set them on fire for a living, while eating endangered animals for lunch, my overall impact on the environment, personally, is going to be considerably smaller, especially in the area of consumption and waste generation.
Now, whether or not I'd like it, I can't say for certain. But on the matter of population growth, which is what Klyka was talking about, it makes a pretty goddamn big difference, whether you hate China or not.
Synthesis on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
You can modify the planet's carrying capacity through technology, so it's not really a static overwhelming limitation on human progress. This was in fact one of the major oversights of Malthus' theories.
Sure but how much? Is relying on technology a good idea? Isn't that going to increase energy usage rates overall?
You know what is a horrible blight on society? Cities. Complete waste of energy. Packing a bunch of people ina small space and ferrying food into them at huge cost.
I like cities, but they're still terrible.
Packing a bunch of people into a small space saves on heating and transportation bills and allows for greater specialization given the larger population.
They're like, the best thing for society.
The majority of the western societies overconsumption of resources are because of cities. I only have to look outside to see all the shops selling energy wasting crap nobody really needs to find your argument a bit lacking.
What I'm saying is the benefits are outweighed by having humans wasting resources because of them being close together.
I'm not saying get rid of cities though. It's far, far too late for that, our population has already gone beyond that point.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
You can modify the planet's carrying capacity through technology, so it's not really a static overwhelming limitation on human progress. This was in fact one of the major oversights of Malthus' theories.
yes. but a neoclassical retort should always have the prefix: hopefully, blah blah technology etc.
The neomathusian is here to remind us that: maybe not...
let me add that...
Drinking water, is what i would say our next limiting factor will be.
You mean water for agriculture and industrial use right? Drinking water is a trivial concern, barring the earth hurtling toward the sun or something there isn't an issue there (except for the vast swaths of the planet that don't have acceptable drinking water and have to drink filth)
You can modify the planet's carrying capacity through technology, so it's not really a static overwhelming limitation on human progress. This was in fact one of the major oversights of Malthus' theories.
Sure but how much? Is relying on technology a good idea? Isn't that going to increase energy usage rates overall?
You know what is a horrible blight on society? Cities. Complete waste of energy. Packing a bunch of people ina small space and ferrying food into them at huge cost.
I like cities, but they're still terrible.
Packing a bunch of people into a small space saves on heating and transportation bills and allows for greater specialization given the larger population.
They're like, the best thing for society.
The majority of the western societies overconsumption of resources are because of cities. I only have to look outside to see all the shops selling energy wasting crap nobody really needs to find your argument a bit lacking.
..Really? That's because of cities?
Like if we didn't have cities people wouldn't want an iPod? Why is an iPod wasteful?
I think a monster truck rally is a thousand times more wasteful than a big screen tv, if you're looking at resources consumed.
But people care about sex more than they care about children.
And regulations still allow you to have both sex AND children.
I mean,seriously,do you need more than 2 children? Are you seriously telling me there is going to be some terrible fucking hole in your heart because " I NEED 4 CHILDREN GOD DAMMIT 2 IS NOT ENOUGH"?
Pushed far enough for a rational justification for procreation one finds that there is none.
Depends on how you evaluate rationale. I guessed push far enough, it becomes hard to rationalize one's own continued existence. Kill yourself.
Yar on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
You can modify the planet's carrying capacity through technology, so it's not really a static overwhelming limitation on human progress. This was in fact one of the major oversights of Malthus' theories.
yes. but a neoclassical retort should always have the prefix: hopefully, blah blah technology etc.
The neomathusian is here to remind us that: maybe not...
let me add that...
Drinking water, is what i would say our next limiting factor will be.
You mean water for agriculture and industrial use right? Drinking water is a trivial concern, barring the earth hurtling toward the sun or something there isn't an issue there (except for the vast swaths of the planet that don't have acceptable drinking water and have to drink filth)
The real problem is first world ick factor for things like grey water. We'll get over it when push comes to shove.
What would happen if 6,000,000,000 billion people suddenly started driving cars and using resources at the same level as Americans?
It seems pretty obvious to me that the planet can't support every person in the world having real access to the same standard of living as the United States. If we're cool with that injustice, then there's no such thing as overpopulation right now. But if we're not, overpopulation is a huge problem.
I don't like framing the problem as overpopulation. Overpopulation is not the problem. Overconsumption is the problem.
While it's true that we could curb out consumption dramatically and still be happy as soon as you frame it as overcomsumption your pretty much advocating we lower our standard of living.
Not necessarily.
Does walking 15 minutes to work rather than driving 60 minutes lower your standard of living? How about taking public transit?
Does eating more vegetables and less red meat lower your standard of living?
Those are two clear examples where reducing consumption actually improves your standard of living. At least, it improves it by any objective standard. There are plenty of people who think that eating a salad instead of a hamburger is a reduction in "standard of living" but that is purely a matter of preference, and we can't allow any preference no matter how silly or personal to dictate what "standard of living" means.
If we look at the problem in basic objective terms, such as disease rates, longevity, leisure time, nutrition, availability of housing and education, and so forth, then I believe that we can adopt more sustainable lifestyles, bolstered by greener technology, without dramatically impacting our quality of life.
Is using a CFL that lasts ten times as long as an incandescent lowering your standard of living?
Is insulating your house with modern materials and installing a water heater that only runs when you need it instead of constantly burning oil lowering your standard of living?
Is driving a car which is powered by electricity from a nuclear plant rather than massively inefficient internal combustion lowering your standard of living?
Adrien on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
But people care about sex more than they care about children.
And regulations still allow you to have both sex AND children.
I mean,seriously,do you need more than 2 children? Are you seriously telling me there is going to be some terrible fucking hole in your heart because " I NEED 4 CHILDREN GOD DAMMIT 2 IS NOT ENOUGH"?
It isn't something based on reason so reasonable arguments aren't going to help you understand it.
Most people don't use reason and good logic. The world would be a lot less fucked up if they did for a start.
Yeah but,I mean, even if you are a stupid couple without reason, you WILL understand that if you have more than 2 children,you will be punished.
And you can't tell me those people are gonna have more than 2 children. MAYBE once they'll go astray and then get kicked down by the punishment and realize "ok, we can just fuck with a condom on or I get a vasectomy or whatever".
I just don't see ANYONE who is living under that rule going "but I really, really NEED more than 2 children".
It's not impossible. China's taxation benefit/legal penalty system, while extremely controversial, actually works. China's growth rate is 0.554%, lower than that of the US.
But where would you rather live for the rest of your life?
Me personally? It's hard to say, given that I'm a Taiwanese national (if you think I'm living in the United States for the rest of my life, you're probably being unrealistically optimistic). Plus, I live in the South--the poor South, not the wealthy dainty Dixie south. In 30 years, this place could be a shit-hole compared to anywhere in China, the way things are progressing.
Where would the the environment prefer I live for the rest of my life? China, with close to no doubt.
China has a lot of work to do in regards to environmental protection, and this is something that is part of standard of living on a subtle level. The ability to live a comfortable life here in the states with the little amount of noticable impact we have is a very poignant reminder of how good we have it.
You can modify the planet's carrying capacity through technology, so it's not really a static overwhelming limitation on human progress. This was in fact one of the major oversights of Malthus' theories.
Sure but how much? Is relying on technology a good idea? Isn't that going to increase energy usage rates overall?
You know what is a horrible blight on society? Cities. Complete waste of energy. Packing a bunch of people ina small space and ferrying food into them at huge cost.
I like cities, but they're still terrible.
Packing a bunch of people into a small space saves on heating and transportation bills and allows for greater specialization given the larger population.
They're like, the best thing for society.
The majority of the western societies overconsumption of resources are because of cities. I only have to look outside to see all the shops selling energy wasting crap nobody really needs to find your argument a bit lacking.
What I'm saying is the benefits are outweighed by having humans wasting resources because of them being close together.
I'm not saying get rid of cities though. It's far, far too late for that, our population has already gone beyond that point.
You can modify the planet's carrying capacity through technology, so it's not really a static overwhelming limitation on human progress. This was in fact one of the major oversights of Malthus' theories.
Sure but how much? Is relying on technology a good idea? Isn't that going to increase energy usage rates overall?
You know what is a horrible blight on society? Cities. Complete waste of energy. Packing a bunch of people ina small space and ferrying food into them at huge cost.
I like cities, but they're still terrible.
Actually the weighted elevator is the most efficient mode of human transportation. If we could produce crops in cities (cross your fingers for fusion power), the suburbs would hopefully be wiped off the map.
TL DR on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
What would happen if 6,000,000,000 billion people suddenly started driving cars and using resources at the same level as Americans?
It seems pretty obvious to me that the planet can't support every person in the world having real access to the same standard of living as the United States. If we're cool with that injustice, then there's no such thing as overpopulation right now. But if we're not, overpopulation is a huge problem.
I don't like framing the problem as overpopulation. Overpopulation is not the problem. Overconsumption is the problem.
While it's true that we could curb out consumption dramatically and still be happy as soon as you frame it as overcomsumption your pretty much advocating we lower our standard of living.
Not necessarily.
Does walking 15 minutes to work rather than driving 60 minutes lower your standard of living? How about taking public transit?
Does eating more vegetables and less red meat lower your standard of living?
Those are two clear examples where reducing consumption actually improves your standard of living. At least, it improves it by any objective standard. There are plenty of people who think that eating a salad instead of a hamburger is a reduction in "standard of living" but that is purely a matter of preference, and we can't allow any preference no matter how silly or personal to dictate what "standard of living" means.
If we look at the problem in basic objective terms, such as disease rates, longevity, leisure time, nutrition, availability of housing and education, and so forth, then I believe that we can adopt more sustainable lifestyles, bolstered by greener technology, without dramatically impacting our quality of life.
Is using a CFL that lasts ten times as long as an incandescent lowering your standard of living?
Is insulating your house with modern materials and installing a water heater that only runs when you need it instead of constantly burning oil lowering your standard of living?
Is driving a car which is powered by electricity from a nuclear plant rather than massively inefficient internal combustion lowering your standard of living?
The largest problem with standard of living comes from the belief that the status quo is the pinnacle and any elimination of inefficient or outright damaging parts of that status quo means a reversion.
You can modify the planet's carrying capacity through technology, so it's not really a static overwhelming limitation on human progress. This was in fact one of the major oversights of Malthus' theories.
yes. but a neoclassical retort should always have the prefix: hopefully, blah blah technology etc.
The neomathusian is here to remind us that: maybe not...
let me add that...
Drinking water, is what i would say our next limiting factor will be.
You mean water for agriculture and industrial use right? Drinking water is a trivial concern, barring the earth hurtling toward the sun or something there isn't an issue there (except for the vast swaths of the planet that don't have acceptable drinking water and have to drink filth)
The real problem is first world ick factor for things like grey water. We'll get over it when push comes to shove.
My point was that drinking water, something that is required to live is a tiny, tiny fraction of our water supply. We use what? 10% for home use or something in the United States? Out of that 10% what percentage is drinking water? Maybe 10%?
Lets be generous and say 3% of our water usage is for drinking, we aren't going to run out of water for that purpose in the first world at any point in the forseeable future.
You can modify the planet's carrying capacity through technology, so it's not really a static overwhelming limitation on human progress. This was in fact one of the major oversights of Malthus' theories.
Sure but how much? Is relying on technology a good idea? Isn't that going to increase energy usage rates overall?
You know what is a horrible blight on society? Cities. Complete waste of energy. Packing a bunch of people ina small space and ferrying food into them at huge cost.
I like cities, but they're still terrible.
Packing a bunch of people into a small space saves on heating and transportation bills and allows for greater specialization given the larger population.
They're like, the best thing for society.
Which is exactly why cities formed naturally anyway.
I hate cities (that is, I hate living in them), but they are very efficient economically and have the potential to be very efficient environmentally with the proper design.
As far as the general argument in this thread, it seems obvious to me that you can solve these problems by some combination of producing more, consuming less, and reducing the population. I don't think it's reasonable to rely too heavily on any one of those.
It does seem to me that a reduction (or at least a stabilization) in population would make every other problem we face simpler, though—especially the environmental concerns. Global warming is the big thing in the media right now, but it isn't anywhere near as problematic right now as ongoing habitat destruction (someone earlier mentioned that there's plenty of unused land in the US right now that we can fill up with people, and that's exactly the attitude that causes these problems), overharvesting (esp. of fish and other marine life), and ye olde chemical pollution (runoff from farms, industrial waste, combustion products, etc.). And once climate change does get around to kicking our asses, it'll magnify all these other problems too. Everything just becomes easier with fewer people.
The majority of the western societies overconsumption of resources are because of cities. I only have to look outside to see all the shops selling energy wasting crap nobody really needs to find your argument a bit lacking.
No, you are reversing causation. Industrialization drove the move to cities encouraging even more industrialization and therefore economic growth. That economic growth fueled the ability for people to buy that 'energy wasting crap'. That same move to cities is allowing us to actually start addressing the issues surrounding this growth in standard of living by concentrating human capital.
I guess unless you really love the idea of the noble savage, then yeah, down with cities. Personally, I would take pollution and a waste over a late 1800's existence ANY day.
Also, China's birth control policies are awful and I have no idea why people seem to think they are a good idea. They are looking at a hugely lopsided population as a result, with all the chaos that entails.
Posts
It isn't something based on reason so reasonable arguments aren't going to help you understand it.
Most people don't use reason and good logic. The world would be a lot less fucked up if they did for a start.
You sure about that?
Actually, it probably would be more fucked up wouldn't it. Nobody would get anything done. :P
I like this framing, since the whole Malthus' issue isn't really relevant anymore (and the UN had projected we're to reach 9-10 billion by the end of this century before world population stabilizes [though I imagine this has some assumptions about overall levels of development built in but that's a digression]).
Though I imagine even this problem might be solved through technological progress. Either through more/different resource exploitation or extraplanetary resource extraction. Depending on the time scale involved in wanting to 'solve' the problem, anyway.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
The peak oil dieoff theory involves oil being required to create food, despite nations with 50+ million people in Africa, significantly more densly populated than the US, that never experienced the green revolution. Yes there's starving people in placed like Congo but their population is still rising.
Peak oil is an economic problem for the first world, not an existential problem (for sources look at how much America's oil consumption dropped per capita after the oil shock of the 70s, and realize that in the event of a crisis the same thing will happen - we can use less, much less). I fear it might fuck large swaths of India in the ass though.
No no, the point is you enforce population regulation on some minority that the majority dislikes so that the people doing the hating don't have to endure such regulation.
Not necessarily.
Does walking 15 minutes to work rather than driving 60 minutes lower your standard of living? How about taking public transit?
Does eating more vegetables and less red meat lower your standard of living?
Those are two clear examples where reducing consumption actually improves your standard of living. At least, it improves it by any objective standard. There are plenty of people who think that eating a salad instead of a hamburger is a reduction in "standard of living" but that is purely a matter of preference, and we can't allow any preference no matter how silly or personal to dictate what "standard of living" means.
If we look at the problem in basic objective terms, such as disease rates, longevity, leisure time, nutrition, availability of housing and education, and so forth, then I believe that we can adopt more sustainable lifestyles, bolstered by greener technology, without dramatically impacting our quality of life.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah but,I mean, even if you are a stupid couple without reason, you WILL understand that if you have more than 2 children,you will be punished.
And you can't tell me those people are gonna have more than 2 children. MAYBE once they'll go astray and then get kicked down by the punishment and realize "ok, we can just fuck with a condom on or I get a vasectomy or whatever".
I just don't see ANYONE who is living under that rule going "but I really, really NEED more than 2 children".
Klyka man you have too much faith in people. You don't need a good reason to "need" something. A need is a fundamental thing, people will happily just start off with "I need it" without anything else underneath. People will claim they need it even if you push them to the point where they can't articulate why. And if you do they will cut you off, ignore you, or otherwise fail to comprehend their lack of a good reason. There's a lot of people like that and politics works by listening to a majority. So they do have power.
Has anyone utilized the phrase "carrying capacity" yet?
Whichever pairing we use (overpopulation / average consumption) or (average population / over consumption) the presumed fact of the matter is that the Earth can only produce X.
When the needs of the species on the planet exceed X then, well, we be fucked.
Maybe we could have less babies AND eat less shit.
Sometimes, but most cool ideas from pure mathematical economics are self contained. See Kurgman and inteplanetary speed of light travel and interest rates.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Ehh, I'm not entirely sure space is that big of an issue. Assuming population rates stabilize, which everything seems to point to (or at least a drastic slowing down) with development progress then space doesn't seem that much of an obstacle. Plus with terraforming technology/land reclamation/urban design changing you can still find new space for people.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Sure but how much? Is relying on technology a good idea? Isn't that going to increase energy usage rates overall?
You know what is a horrible blight on society? Cities. Complete waste of energy. Packing a bunch of people ina small space and ferrying food into them at huge cost.
I like cities, but they're still terrible.
It's not impossible. China's taxation benefit/legal penalty system, while extremely controversial, actually works. China's growth rate is 0.554%, lower than that of the US. I have no doubt that the Beijing Government (and pretty much every single young Chinese adult, for that matter) sleeps a lot better at night knowing that it's that, instead of 2.75% (what it was in 1971).
It's hard, really, to predict technological effects of unknown technologies on current problems. Though depending on the timeframes we're talking about (let's say a century and us reaching the 9-10 billion projected) then I'd imagine we'd have already made significant inroads in fusion such that energy isn't as much a problem.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I thought politics works by telling the people what you WILL do and then doing what you WANT to do.
Also,it's not like votes really hold THAT much power. If the people in charge and the organs needed to run the country,especially law enforcement (also the military,of course) all decide that "yeah,your votes don't really matter anymore" then those votes don't matter. Sure,dictatorship/despotism/whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that the votes are just worth what is allowed.
Of course dealing with the riots etc.. that are bound to happen and all the other ugliness,yeah that's the stuff that keeps it from happening.
I'm just saying don't expect everybody to be happy about it. Don't even try.
Packing a bunch of people into a small space saves on heating and transportation bills and allows for greater specialization given the larger population.
They're like, the best thing for society.
But where would you rather live for the rest of your life?
If you show me a country without any children in it that has the same living standard as my current one, I would move to that place in an instant.
Desalination on a larger scale would fix that.*
Of course, desalination likes to draw lots of power so in my ideal world I'd couple it with fusion.
* ignoring the unknown effects of massive desalination on sea levels.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
What? No. Cities are good. There are economies of scale with conservation. It is far easier to deal with concentrated waste than it is dispersed waste. Transportation costs for raw foodstuffs are almost exceedingly small.
Having individuals farming their own crops would be awful.
Same, but I can't really tolerate the China Does This and See How Great They're Doing defense of most things.
Me personally? It's hard to say, given that I'm a Taiwanese national (if you think I'm going to be living in the United States for the rest of my life, you're probably being unrealistically optimistic). Plus, I live in the South--the poor South, not the wealthy dainty Dixie south. In 30 years, this place could be a shit-hole compared to anywhere in China, the way things are progressing.
Where would the the environment prefer I live for the rest of my life? China, with close to no doubt. Even with their own environmental disaster, unless I professionally drive SUVs in circles and set them on fire for a living, while eating endangered animals for lunch, my overall impact on the environment, personally, is going to be considerably smaller, especially in the area of consumption and waste generation.
Now, whether or not I'd like it, I can't say for certain. But on the matter of population growth, which is what Klyka was talking about, it makes a pretty goddamn big difference, whether you hate China or not.
The majority of the western societies overconsumption of resources are because of cities. I only have to look outside to see all the shops selling energy wasting crap nobody really needs to find your argument a bit lacking.
What I'm saying is the benefits are outweighed by having humans wasting resources because of them being close together.
I'm not saying get rid of cities though. It's far, far too late for that, our population has already gone beyond that point.
You mean water for agriculture and industrial use right? Drinking water is a trivial concern, barring the earth hurtling toward the sun or something there isn't an issue there (except for the vast swaths of the planet that don't have acceptable drinking water and have to drink filth)
..Really? That's because of cities?
Like if we didn't have cities people wouldn't want an iPod? Why is an iPod wasteful?
I think a monster truck rally is a thousand times more wasteful than a big screen tv, if you're looking at resources consumed.
The real problem is first world ick factor for things like grey water. We'll get over it when push comes to shove.
Is using a CFL that lasts ten times as long as an incandescent lowering your standard of living?
Is insulating your house with modern materials and installing a water heater that only runs when you need it instead of constantly burning oil lowering your standard of living?
Is driving a car which is powered by electricity from a nuclear plant rather than massively inefficient internal combustion lowering your standard of living?
China has a lot of work to do in regards to environmental protection, and this is something that is part of standard of living on a subtle level. The ability to live a comfortable life here in the states with the little amount of noticable impact we have is a very poignant reminder of how good we have it.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/3757
You're basically totally wrong dude. I mean, black is white up is down the holocaust never happened wrong.
On the other hand, a thousand people can consume the same monster truck rally. Is the rally more wasteful than a thousand big screen TVs?
Actually the weighted elevator is the most efficient mode of human transportation. If we could produce crops in cities (cross your fingers for fusion power), the suburbs would hopefully be wiped off the map.
The largest problem with standard of living comes from the belief that the status quo is the pinnacle and any elimination of inefficient or outright damaging parts of that status quo means a reversion.
My point was that drinking water, something that is required to live is a tiny, tiny fraction of our water supply. We use what? 10% for home use or something in the United States? Out of that 10% what percentage is drinking water? Maybe 10%?
Lets be generous and say 3% of our water usage is for drinking, we aren't going to run out of water for that purpose in the first world at any point in the forseeable future.
I hate cities (that is, I hate living in them), but they are very efficient economically and have the potential to be very efficient environmentally with the proper design.
As far as the general argument in this thread, it seems obvious to me that you can solve these problems by some combination of producing more, consuming less, and reducing the population. I don't think it's reasonable to rely too heavily on any one of those.
It does seem to me that a reduction (or at least a stabilization) in population would make every other problem we face simpler, though—especially the environmental concerns. Global warming is the big thing in the media right now, but it isn't anywhere near as problematic right now as ongoing habitat destruction (someone earlier mentioned that there's plenty of unused land in the US right now that we can fill up with people, and that's exactly the attitude that causes these problems), overharvesting (esp. of fish and other marine life), and ye olde chemical pollution (runoff from farms, industrial waste, combustion products, etc.). And once climate change does get around to kicking our asses, it'll magnify all these other problems too. Everything just becomes easier with fewer people.
No, you are reversing causation. Industrialization drove the move to cities encouraging even more industrialization and therefore economic growth. That economic growth fueled the ability for people to buy that 'energy wasting crap'. That same move to cities is allowing us to actually start addressing the issues surrounding this growth in standard of living by concentrating human capital.
I guess unless you really love the idea of the noble savage, then yeah, down with cities. Personally, I would take pollution and a waste over a late 1800's existence ANY day.
Also, China's birth control policies are awful and I have no idea why people seem to think they are a good idea. They are looking at a hugely lopsided population as a result, with all the chaos that entails.