5 ms·

1. Reproduction is not a natural right. If you reproduce beyond a sustainable level your offsprings will pay for that with reduced life expectation and being un

by danbruc 11y ago

1. Reproduction is not a natural right. If you reproduce beyond a sustainable level your offsprings will pay for that with reduced life expectation and being unable to reproduce in consequence. It's essentially the same thing that happens in predator prey cycles. And you don't have to cease reproducing altogether, just limit it to a sustainable level of about one child per human. 2. There are of course advantages to stable population sizes, most importantly resources will last longer and allow sustaining human society for longer. 3.1. larger communities for people with low-frequency deviations from social norms It is not obvious to me why that is a good thing. 3.2. a broader spectrum of human social and psychological possibilities represented, increased production and creative capacity That seems to be the best argument for larger populations besides increased production capacity because that is countered by an increased consumption. 3.3. greater base of working-age citizens to support the non-working portion (retired, children) That is not true for a larger population, the proportion is the same as for a smaller one. It is only true while the population is growing and that is either unsustainable or the effect is unimportant if the growth is marginal. 3.4. more people at the top of the bell curve to draw from for important positions (better leaders, more geniuses, etc) That is essentially the same argument as 3.2. 4. Smaller populations are not necessarily better, you benefit from decision of labor, scale effects, you are more resistant to disasters. The optimum is definitely somewhere in the middle, it is neither one human that can no longer reproduce and will easily go extinct, and it is also not ten to the hundred for obvious reasons. The question is therefore definitely not whether or not we should seek for a stable population, it is where the most desirable level is. And here I argue we should first bring the entire world population to the levels of wealth, education and consumption of the middle class of leading developed countries and then we can have a look at how much resources are left, what happened to environment and climate, whether we need more smart people.

ryanwaggoner 11y ago
Reproduction is not a natural right. Then nothing is. Fortunately for those of us who don't want to see humanity ruled as you suggest, it seems pretty well established that reproduction is a fundamental human right.
- danbruc 11y ago
  Of course there are no fundamental rights. If I had the largest gun in the world I could just kill everyone denying them all rights or force them to do whatever pleases me. Rights are agreements between humans - you want to live, I want to live, so let's agree that killing people is a bad thing, let's have a right to live. Nothing more, nothing less. So if the population grows to some level that becomes a danger for the sustainability of our society, then it is in everyone's self-interest or the interests of their children to voluntarily limit the number of children they have. And if the majority of the people agrees on that, then having more children than the society believes you should have becomes a punishable misbehavior. So right now you can imagine to have the right to reproduce but that is only because we did not yet have the need to regulate it because the population is not yet too large. But there is absolutely nothing that makes this an eternal truth. Once the population reaches a critical level you face the decisions to either limit reproduction or to see your children live a miserable life in an overcrowded world. I would definitely vote for limiting reproduction because I value my few children having a good life way more than having many children having a miserable life. And this has nothing to do with being ruled in one way or another, the society itself should come to the conclusion that it is a necessary policy.
  - ryanwaggoner 11y ago
    The fact that you can violate someone's fundamental human rights doesn't deny their existence.
    - danbruc 11y ago
      Agreed, that was not really a convincing argument unless you already believe that there are some absolute rights. Let's attack this from a different angle. Where are those rights coming from? And do they only apply to humans? Why? Why not to primates? If they apply also to primates, are lions hunting and killing primates - not sure if they actually do - violating basic primate rights? How do you come to know about your fundamental rights? Could you still come up with the same ideas if you were the only human on earth? And more specifically, if reproduction is a fundamental right, can you rape other humans in case no one voluntarily wants to reproduce with you? You probably don't think that, so you are not really arguing for an ultimate right to reproduce but the right to do so with consent. This again raises the question of incest. Why can we outlaw incest when you have a fundamental right to reproduce. Because bad things are likely to happen to possible offspring? But so does reproduction leading to overpopulation just not in such a direct way. Absolute rights and a right to reproduce in particular are - at least in my opinion - hard to defend positions. The only more or less reasonable argument I can think of is declaring that those absolute rights are a god given thing and period. In that case there is not much I could argue against besides the believe in a god in the first place.
qrendel 11y ago
3.1 - A good thing because people with unusual interests and personality traits will be able to form communities of people with similar interests. For example, in a town of a thousand people, you might be the only one who enjoys an odd hobby like underwater hockey (it's a real thing). In a city of ten million, there may be hundreds or thousands of people to form an entire league with. "Deviations" as used wasn't intended to have a pejorative connotation. 3.2. Contradicts the basic premise (no immediate resource limit) and the original article. The world has become richer despite growing population, because production has outrun consumption. No reason to think it will stop in the immediate future, any more than it did in Malthus' time. 3.3. You're simultaneously saying the economic problems arise when population stops growing and becomes stable, and supporting ending population growth in favor of a stable population. If there's a limit where quality of life decreases due to increasing population, we haven't hit it yet, given that quality of life and per capita wealth is still improving globally, so there's no reason to put the brakes on before we even know where it is. > it is also not ten to the hundred for obvious reasons. We're assuming technology and productive capacity also improves to keep up. We're also nowhere near 10^100. Nor do we know where this hypothetical optimum is. Population controls should be a last resort to solving problems we are't facing yet, not done just because a theoretical optimum for quality of life may exist at some hypothetical large number.
- danbruc 11y ago
  3.1. But that also means that all the bad minorities can form stronger groups and be potentially more impactful. If you can not play underwater hockey you might pick some other form of hockey instead. Maybe it makes you a bit less happy but what is the effect of a less fragmented society? I am not dismissing the idea that there might be a positive effect but I am not obviously convinced. 3.2. I would argue that the increase in wealth is mostly due to increased productivity and not due to population growth and therefore could continue even without further population growth. Population growth is certainly not totally irrelevant due to scale effects but I don't see that simply doubling the population would lead to significantly increased wealth. 3.3. That is not what I am saying. Having a pyramid shaped age structure is an easy way to have a lot of workforce available to support the elderly but that structure is not the result of a large population but of an growing population. And in order to be a significant effect you can not have just a tiny bit of growth but a substantial amount of growth is definitely unsustainable. The limit definitely exists but I also think we will not hit it, we will not need any (large scale) birth control policies because the birth rate will drop enough with increasing wealth. Looking at developed nations it looks actually more like we will have to incentivize having more children in order not to go extinct.

by danbruc 11y ago

ryanwaggoner 11y ago

Reproduction is not a natural right. Then nothing is. Fortunately for those of us who don't want to see humanity ruled as you suggest, it seems pretty well established that reproduction is a fundamental human right.

danbruc 11y ago
Of course there are no fundamental rights. If I had the largest gun in the world I could just kill everyone denying them all rights or force them to do whatever pleases me. Rights are agreements between humans - you want to live, I want to live, so let's agree that killing people is a bad thing, let's have a right to live. Nothing more, nothing less. So if the population grows to some level that becomes a danger for the sustainability of our society, then it is in everyone's self-interest or the interests of their children to voluntarily limit the number of children they have. And if the majority of the people agrees on that, then having more children than the society believes you should have becomes a punishable misbehavior. So right now you can imagine to have the right to reproduce but that is only because we did not yet have the need to regulate it because the population is not yet too large. But there is absolutely nothing that makes this an eternal truth. Once the population reaches a critical level you face the decisions to either limit reproduction or to see your children live a miserable life in an overcrowded world. I would definitely vote for limiting reproduction because I value my few children having a good life way more than having many children having a miserable life. And this has nothing to do with being ruled in one way or another, the society itself should come to the conclusion that it is a necessary policy.
- ryanwaggoner 11y ago
  The fact that you can violate someone's fundamental human rights doesn't deny their existence.
  - danbruc 11y ago
    Agreed, that was not really a convincing argument unless you already believe that there are some absolute rights. Let's attack this from a different angle. Where are those rights coming from? And do they only apply to humans? Why? Why not to primates? If they apply also to primates, are lions hunting and killing primates - not sure if they actually do - violating basic primate rights? How do you come to know about your fundamental rights? Could you still come up with the same ideas if you were the only human on earth? And more specifically, if reproduction is a fundamental right, can you rape other humans in case no one voluntarily wants to reproduce with you? You probably don't think that, so you are not really arguing for an ultimate right to reproduce but the right to do so with consent. This again raises the question of incest. Why can we outlaw incest when you have a fundamental right to reproduce. Because bad things are likely to happen to possible offspring? But so does reproduction leading to overpopulation just not in such a direct way. Absolute rights and a right to reproduce in particular are - at least in my opinion - hard to defend positions. The only more or less reasonable argument I can think of is declaring that those absolute rights are a god given thing and period. In that case there is not much I could argue against besides the believe in a god in the first place.

qrendel 11y ago

3.1 - A good thing because people with unusual interests and personality traits will be able to form communities of people with similar interests. For example, in a town of a thousand people, you might be the only one who enjoys an odd hobby like underwater hockey (it's a real thing). In a city of ten million, there may be hundreds or thousands of people to form an entire league with. "Deviations" as used wasn't intended to have a pejorative connotation. 3.2. Contradicts the basic premise (no immediate resource limit) and the original article. The world has become richer despite growing population, because production has outrun consumption. No reason to think it will stop in the immediate future, any more than it did in Malthus' time. 3.3. You're simultaneously saying the economic problems arise when population stops growing and becomes stable, and supporting ending population growth in favor of a stable population. If there's a limit where quality of life decreases due to increasing population, we haven't hit it yet, given that quality of life and per capita wealth is still improving globally, so there's no reason to put the brakes on before we even know where it is. > it is also not ten to the hundred for obvious reasons. We're assuming technology and productive capacity also improves to keep up. We're also nowhere near 10^100. Nor do we know where this hypothetical optimum is. Population controls should be a last resort to solving problems we are't facing yet, not done just because a theoretical optimum for quality of life may exist at some hypothetical large number.

danbruc 11y ago
3.1. But that also means that all the bad minorities can form stronger groups and be potentially more impactful. If you can not play underwater hockey you might pick some other form of hockey instead. Maybe it makes you a bit less happy but what is the effect of a less fragmented society? I am not dismissing the idea that there might be a positive effect but I am not obviously convinced. 3.2. I would argue that the increase in wealth is mostly due to increased productivity and not due to population growth and therefore could continue even without further population growth. Population growth is certainly not totally irrelevant due to scale effects but I don't see that simply doubling the population would lead to significantly increased wealth. 3.3. That is not what I am saying. Having a pyramid shaped age structure is an easy way to have a lot of workforce available to support the elderly but that structure is not the result of a large population but of an growing population. And in order to be a significant effect you can not have just a tiny bit of growth but a substantial amount of growth is definitely unsustainable. The limit definitely exists but I also think we will not hit it, we will not need any (large scale) birth control policies because the birth rate will drop enough with increasing wealth. Looking at developed nations it looks actually more like we will have to incentivize having more children in order not to go extinct.