6 ms·

Another user has already (unapologetically) advanced population reduction arguments. I want to preempt that discussion by condemning it as lazy, selfish thinkin

by Olscore 11y ago

Another user has already (unapologetically) advanced population reduction arguments. I want to preempt that discussion by condemning it as lazy, selfish thinking. Controlling population as a solution to economic, environmental or similar issues of resource contention is a morally hazardous slippery slope; it should not be welcome in the realm of innovation and ingenuity specifically because it is not innovative or constructive at all. Design solutions around population growth or exit the conversation. Each of us can look towards the sky and see the sprawling space and resources available. We have companies today organized under the premise to go out and mine asteroids, explore other planetary bodies and much more. Yet, some continue talking as if the Earth were more valuable than the only thing (humans) that can ascribe it value. Gaia worship and similar propaganda should be exposed for the anti-human agenda it is. I sincerely despise this line of thinking. Whether we like it or not, humanity is the steward of this Earth. Being good stewards of our resources SHOULD NOT first appeal to last-ditch efforts like controlling the population. We all have imaginations; along with the ability to create solutions to problems. Stop perpetuating the idea that future generations are evil, bad, doomed or unwanted; they are very welcome and wanted. Now, and always. Our parents did not put our generation to slaughter for selfish reasons, so we have no justification for it either. Instead of proposing anti-humanist goals of little thought or substance, set your mind to work and stop being intellectually lazy. We already have hints from various nations who have tried to control populations, with evidence of detrimental and unintended side-effects. I am by no means saying there are simple fixes. But immediately jumping to population control is pure lazy thinking.

danbruc 11y ago
Each of us can look towards the sky and see the sprawling space and resources available. Except there isn't a sprawling amount of resources for an exponentially growing population. Let's say we reach the resource limit of Earth and start reaching for the stars to find new places to live. If we can colonize one Earth-like planet around every single star of the 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, we would run out of places to live after 2685 years if the human population kept growing at a rate of 1 % per year. That isn't even enough time to reach all places in the Milky Way even if we could travel at the speed of light. Actually you could barely cross 2 % of the diameter of the Milky Way in that time. Exponential growth is unsustainable. Period.
- Olscore 11y ago
  You are conflating the message with the example given. The point is simply this; some are too eager to solve resource contention issues via population reduction, which is not at all stimulating nor is it innovative. It is the lazy way out, and should really be a last resort or option. I do appreciate your point, but I would like people to be less eager to buy into population control. Encouraging alternative solutions instead; innovations of efficiency, waste reduction, or inventions which are more preferable than population control. There is a growing group of people who believe the world is over populated. I want to push back against that mentality a little bit, because we should not resign ourselves to hopeless thinking. There are plenty of things we can do to improve our situation before resorting to dramatic actions. I want to avoid "there is no other solution" like thinking. Once we stop looking for other solutions, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is what I mean by lazy and morally hazardous.
  - danbruc 11y ago
    But there are no other solutions, believing that technical advances can keep exponentially growing resource demands in check is delusional. If some process is currently 20 % efficient then there is at most a factor of 5 to be gained. And that assumes 100 % efficiency is attainable to begin with while it is not unlikely that physics sets a limit on the maximum attainable efficiency of say 50 % or 80 %. A population growth rate of 1 % per year will eat up a factor of 2 in improved efficiency in 70 years and there are only so many times you can squeeze out another factor of 2 before you hit a hard limit. It is not lazy to try to control population growth, it is the only viable longterm solution because technology can not solve this problem. The goal must be to stop population growth or, for practical matters, increase the doubling time at least to the order of millennia. That is why I gave the example with colonizing the Milky Way, to make clear how bad the problem is and how infeasible technological solutions are.
    - shoo 11y ago
      I guess another obvious point is: there isn't a question of whether population growth will be controlled, it's more a question of how exactly that will happen. I.e., is it something we choose, or is it forced on us? less desirable options: uncontrolled global civilisation collapse with rapid decline in living standards and population, nuclear war, etc more desirable options: intentionally adjusting lifestyle / affluence in western countries, non-coercive methods of population control (e.g. better healthcare, increased access to family planning, increased opportunities for women to participate in education / economic activity, etc), less focus on short-term appropriation of wealth
agentgt 11y ago
> We already have hints from various nations who have tried to control populations, with evidence of detrimental and unintended side-effects. Some might argue it did help China. I'm curious what examples you are thinking of (citation) besides obvious genocide and murdering. > I am by no means saying there are simple fixes. But immediately jumping to population control is pure lazy thinking. There is nothing wrong with a nation having sensible mild restrictions or tax relief for taking up less resources. We tax tobacco, liquor and gasoline. Hell red meat should probably be taxed as well (one could argue liquor is not as bad for you as cow and for sure cow is worse on the environment). It doesn't have to be draconian for a mild behavior changes. As with dietary weight loss real changes can be made with out being that innovative or being that extreme. Some might even say the lazy (your word) thing is reaching for the latest panacea instead of being disciplined and/or consistent. BTW in nature many animals deal with population control with given limited resources (some nasty and some just not producing as much offspring). Probably a genetic trait to avoid extinction.
shoo 11y ago
It isn't helpful to myopically discuss population and ignore other things like environmental limits, affluence, resource intensity, biodiversity, (in)equality, etc. Similarly, it is not helpful to decree that any discussion of population is tabu. Other societies have very different standards of what is morally normal and acceptable when it comes to population growth. E.g. Jared Diamond's book Collapse discusses the island of Tikopia [1] -- the people living on this isolated island (~1200 people on 5km^2 of land) managed to live sustainably for hundreds of years with a stable population: > Most readers of this book will have practiced one or more of those methods [of population regulation], such as contraception or abortion, and our decisions to do so may have been implicitly influenced by considerations of human population pressure or family resources. > On Tikopia, however, people are explicit in saying that their motive for contraception and other regulatory behaviours is to prevent the island from becoming overpopulated, and to prevent the family from having more children than the family's land could support. Traditional methods of regulating population included: contraception, abortion, infanticide, celibacy of younger sons and "surplus" marriageable women, suicide, "virtual suicide" (setting out on dangerous sea voyages with essentially no hope of survival), and one instance of warfare between clans (after a decrease of fish and shellfish population led to starvation and conflict over the remaining land and coastline). > Most of these seven methods for keeping Tikopia's population constant have disappeared or declined under European influence during the 20th century. The British colonial government of the Solomons forbade sea voyaging and warfare, while Christian missions preached against abortion, infanticide, and suicide. As a result, Tikopia's population grew from its 1929 level of 1,278 people to 1,758 people by 1952, when two destructive cyclones within the span of 13 months destroyed half of Tikopia's crops and caused widespread famine.
mikeash 11y ago
Arguing for population reduction isn't lazy. Arguing against it by throwing a bunch of loaded language at it while never presenting an actual counterargument definitely is lazy, though. The moment you describe it as "slaughter," you've completely lost me. A gradual reduction by having children at below replacement rate isn't "slaughter" and doesn't in any way imply that future generations are somehow bad or unwanted. If population reduction really is such a bad idea, you should be able to come up with much better arguments against it.
bobwaycott 11y ago
I completely agree on the intellectual laziness on exhibit with population reduction arguments. I think there's far more room for exciting creativity in thinking of ways to move humanity away from capitalist consumerism toward resource consumption habits that are fueled by a long-term outlook on how to avoid waste for the sake of making a buck (or a few billions of bucks), and how to put our creative efforts to use for maximizing utility of resource usage—all while continuing to improve the quality of life that everyone enjoys.
zzinjgu3 11y ago
Just to add, since it seems to be ignored by proponents of population control, that if regulating life is actually being suggested with a straight face as moral, well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and you should really expect your own freedoms to be targeted in kind. It's an arguement that shoots the maker in the foot, and yet it keeps being offered outside of a punchline. I think it can only reflect a deep misanthropy in many people. Human presence on Earth is nowhere near unsustainable IMO - but even if it provably were, surely it would be better to starve than to cannibalize our own species' self-determination and in turn, our own.

by Olscore 11y ago

danbruc 11y ago

Each of us can look towards the sky and see the sprawling space and resources available. Except there isn't a sprawling amount of resources for an exponentially growing population. Let's say we reach the resource limit of Earth and start reaching for the stars to find new places to live. If we can colonize one Earth-like planet around every single star of the 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, we would run out of places to live after 2685 years if the human population kept growing at a rate of 1 % per year. That isn't even enough time to reach all places in the Milky Way even if we could travel at the speed of light. Actually you could barely cross 2 % of the diameter of the Milky Way in that time. Exponential growth is unsustainable. Period.

Olscore 11y ago
You are conflating the message with the example given. The point is simply this; some are too eager to solve resource contention issues via population reduction, which is not at all stimulating nor is it innovative. It is the lazy way out, and should really be a last resort or option. I do appreciate your point, but I would like people to be less eager to buy into population control. Encouraging alternative solutions instead; innovations of efficiency, waste reduction, or inventions which are more preferable than population control. There is a growing group of people who believe the world is over populated. I want to push back against that mentality a little bit, because we should not resign ourselves to hopeless thinking. There are plenty of things we can do to improve our situation before resorting to dramatic actions. I want to avoid "there is no other solution" like thinking. Once we stop looking for other solutions, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is what I mean by lazy and morally hazardous.
- danbruc 11y ago
  But there are no other solutions, believing that technical advances can keep exponentially growing resource demands in check is delusional. If some process is currently 20 % efficient then there is at most a factor of 5 to be gained. And that assumes 100 % efficiency is attainable to begin with while it is not unlikely that physics sets a limit on the maximum attainable efficiency of say 50 % or 80 %. A population growth rate of 1 % per year will eat up a factor of 2 in improved efficiency in 70 years and there are only so many times you can squeeze out another factor of 2 before you hit a hard limit. It is not lazy to try to control population growth, it is the only viable longterm solution because technology can not solve this problem. The goal must be to stop population growth or, for practical matters, increase the doubling time at least to the order of millennia. That is why I gave the example with colonizing the Milky Way, to make clear how bad the problem is and how infeasible technological solutions are.
  - shoo 11y ago
    I guess another obvious point is: there isn't a question of whether population growth will be controlled, it's more a question of how exactly that will happen. I.e., is it something we choose, or is it forced on us? less desirable options: uncontrolled global civilisation collapse with rapid decline in living standards and population, nuclear war, etc more desirable options: intentionally adjusting lifestyle / affluence in western countries, non-coercive methods of population control (e.g. better healthcare, increased access to family planning, increased opportunities for women to participate in education / economic activity, etc), less focus on short-term appropriation of wealth

agentgt 11y ago

> We already have hints from various nations who have tried to control populations, with evidence of detrimental and unintended side-effects. Some might argue it did help China. I'm curious what examples you are thinking of (citation) besides obvious genocide and murdering. > I am by no means saying there are simple fixes. But immediately jumping to population control is pure lazy thinking. There is nothing wrong with a nation having sensible mild restrictions or tax relief for taking up less resources. We tax tobacco, liquor and gasoline. Hell red meat should probably be taxed as well (one could argue liquor is not as bad for you as cow and for sure cow is worse on the environment). It doesn't have to be draconian for a mild behavior changes. As with dietary weight loss real changes can be made with out being that innovative or being that extreme. Some might even say the lazy (your word) thing is reaching for the latest panacea instead of being disciplined and/or consistent. BTW in nature many animals deal with population control with given limited resources (some nasty and some just not producing as much offspring). Probably a genetic trait to avoid extinction.

shoo 11y ago

It isn't helpful to myopically discuss population and ignore other things like environmental limits, affluence, resource intensity, biodiversity, (in)equality, etc. Similarly, it is not helpful to decree that any discussion of population is tabu. Other societies have very different standards of what is morally normal and acceptable when it comes to population growth. E.g. Jared Diamond's book Collapse discusses the island of Tikopia [1] -- the people living on this isolated island (~1200 people on 5km^2 of land) managed to live sustainably for hundreds of years with a stable population: > Most readers of this book will have practiced one or more of those methods [of population regulation], such as contraception or abortion, and our decisions to do so may have been implicitly influenced by considerations of human population pressure or family resources. > On Tikopia, however, people are explicit in saying that their motive for contraception and other regulatory behaviours is to prevent the island from becoming overpopulated, and to prevent the family from having more children than the family's land could support. Traditional methods of regulating population included: contraception, abortion, infanticide, celibacy of younger sons and "surplus" marriageable women, suicide, "virtual suicide" (setting out on dangerous sea voyages with essentially no hope of survival), and one instance of warfare between clans (after a decrease of fish and shellfish population led to starvation and conflict over the remaining land and coastline). > Most of these seven methods for keeping Tikopia's population constant have disappeared or declined under European influence during the 20th century. The British colonial government of the Solomons forbade sea voyaging and warfare, while Christian missions preached against abortion, infanticide, and suicide. As a result, Tikopia's population grew from its 1929 level of 1,278 people to 1,758 people by 1952, when two destructive cyclones within the span of 13 months destroyed half of Tikopia's crops and caused widespread famine.

mikeash 11y ago

Arguing for population reduction isn't lazy. Arguing against it by throwing a bunch of loaded language at it while never presenting an actual counterargument definitely is lazy, though. The moment you describe it as "slaughter," you've completely lost me. A gradual reduction by having children at below replacement rate isn't "slaughter" and doesn't in any way imply that future generations are somehow bad or unwanted. If population reduction really is such a bad idea, you should be able to come up with much better arguments against it.

bobwaycott 11y ago

I completely agree on the intellectual laziness on exhibit with population reduction arguments. I think there's far more room for exciting creativity in thinking of ways to move humanity away from capitalist consumerism toward resource consumption habits that are fueled by a long-term outlook on how to avoid waste for the sake of making a buck (or a few billions of bucks), and how to put our creative efforts to use for maximizing utility of resource usage—all while continuing to improve the quality of life that everyone enjoys.

zzinjgu3 11y ago

Just to add, since it seems to be ignored by proponents of population control, that if regulating life is actually being suggested with a straight face as moral, well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and you should really expect your own freedoms to be targeted in kind. It's an arguement that shoots the maker in the foot, and yet it keeps being offered outside of a punchline. I think it can only reflect a deep misanthropy in many people. Human presence on Earth is nowhere near unsustainable IMO - but even if it provably were, surely it would be better to starve than to cannibalize our own species' self-determination and in turn, our own.