5 ms·

No, we don't need more humans. We need a transition to social and economic systems that are not dependent on everlasting unsustainable growth.

squish78 7y ago
What system would do that best?
- jgalt212 7y ago
  Adam's Smith invisible hand. It's already taken effect in de facto ZPG countries of north/west Europe and Japan.
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    I don't know why you're downvoted. AFAIK you are correct.
- devoply 7y ago
  There is no great replacement for infinite growth Capitalism. Whatever alternatives you choose you will have to give up lots of things that you take for granted. Humans beings at the current time are like drug addicts addicted to heroin and though its killing them and their environment, they are too pleased with the benefits to consider the costs. Let me elaborate on this. Infinite growth Capitalism combined with technological development leads to a civilization whose citizens are constantly concerned with more, a nicer way to say this is growth. This in essence means greater and greater levels of consumption. Their entire existence, their brains, are wired for this hit from growth and progress. Buying a new phone, a new car, new clothes, promotions, salary increases, bigger houses, longer vacations, more sexual partners, etc. They are looking to constantly grow. Without that hit, they would very quickly become dejected and depressed. But this all comes at a great cost. For one thing, people living for that hit don't live in the present, they are always oriented in the future giving up their entire present for a promise of a greater future which never comes, all they get is a hit along the way to that future and anticipation of next hit motivates them. And it's possible to have a psychology that is not set up to constantly seek this sort of hit. Therefore, for a person living with infinite growth capitalism, the transition is probably highly undesirable.
  - sjaknanxnnx 7y ago
    I agree with your take on human psychology, but I don’t think you’re right about it requiring infinite growth. If I get a new phone every year, that’s not actually growth. That contributes the same amount of GDP each year. People can get change without growth.
    - devoply 7y ago
      All money is debt which is to be repaid with interest. Therefore, in order to do business you must experience growth else you can't pay the interest on your debt. New technology and research and development depends on promises of greater fortunes in the future therefore you invest a significant amount with a certain amount of risk to get a certain return in the future. If things were constant but risk still existed, you would lose money each time you took on any risk. Therefore, progress would no longer happen.
timbuckley 7y ago
Exactly. The only way a pyramid-shaped population chart "works" is if people die soon after (or before) they reach the top of the pyramid. In the long run, the only stable population shape ultimately is a column that is thicker at the base.
- e2le 7y ago
  Or simply invest in automation that can care for the elderly and relieve the strain and workload on existing services. Of course also get people to live a healthy lifestyle so they don't need to depend on those services as much in their old age.
fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
This is much like people who move into a area and then say their house should be the last one to be built as we now have enough houses in town. It seems implausible that we have the exactly correct number of humans so you must mean that we should have less of them. If you think we need less humans on earth, lead by example.
- dijit 7y ago
  Implying that the parent should kill themselves for pointing out the very real truth that humanity is far, far overpopulating this planet is not exactly civil. I happen to agree with the parent, not because "got mine", and it's not a "culling of people" but forgetting about social issues the world would be better off with less humans. That will never happen though, because no nation wants to be disadvantaged when it comes to population sizes and many people take it as a god given right that their genes be the ones to proliferate. But what's the point in having more of yourself if there's no planet left in 10 generations?
  - squish78 7y ago
    So what is a real-world implementation of this notion?
    - dijit 7y ago
      From real life: China's one child policy. From fiction: Dissuading the birth of more than one child, by curbing any benefits heavily (such as maternity leave) or increasing taxes on family homes with more than 3 occupants etc; there are many ways to dissuade people from having children, and we /do/ have declining birth rates in most of the developed world because of that. But, if you listen to my nationalistic friends/family, they believe that "[they] shouldn't have to give up having so many children unless $_country also does" So anything like that needs to be a bit more global, otherwise we have overpopulation in some areas which could lead to a requirement to spread and consume resources from less populated areas, which would potentially have the effect of wiping out nationalities. (hypothetically)
Valmar 7y ago
We certainly need to keep our birth rates stable, though, to make up for those that die for whatever unfortunate reasons.
- e2le 7y ago
  100% this, invest in families if you want to have better birth rates.

squish78 7y ago

What system would do that best?

jgalt212 7y ago
Adam's Smith invisible hand. It's already taken effect in de facto ZPG countries of north/west Europe and Japan.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  I don't know why you're downvoted. AFAIK you are correct.
devoply 7y ago
There is no great replacement for infinite growth Capitalism. Whatever alternatives you choose you will have to give up lots of things that you take for granted. Humans beings at the current time are like drug addicts addicted to heroin and though its killing them and their environment, they are too pleased with the benefits to consider the costs. Let me elaborate on this. Infinite growth Capitalism combined with technological development leads to a civilization whose citizens are constantly concerned with more, a nicer way to say this is growth. This in essence means greater and greater levels of consumption. Their entire existence, their brains, are wired for this hit from growth and progress. Buying a new phone, a new car, new clothes, promotions, salary increases, bigger houses, longer vacations, more sexual partners, etc. They are looking to constantly grow. Without that hit, they would very quickly become dejected and depressed. But this all comes at a great cost. For one thing, people living for that hit don't live in the present, they are always oriented in the future giving up their entire present for a promise of a greater future which never comes, all they get is a hit along the way to that future and anticipation of next hit motivates them. And it's possible to have a psychology that is not set up to constantly seek this sort of hit. Therefore, for a person living with infinite growth capitalism, the transition is probably highly undesirable.
- sjaknanxnnx 7y ago
  I agree with your take on human psychology, but I don’t think you’re right about it requiring infinite growth. If I get a new phone every year, that’s not actually growth. That contributes the same amount of GDP each year. People can get change without growth.
  - devoply 7y ago
    All money is debt which is to be repaid with interest. Therefore, in order to do business you must experience growth else you can't pay the interest on your debt. New technology and research and development depends on promises of greater fortunes in the future therefore you invest a significant amount with a certain amount of risk to get a certain return in the future. If things were constant but risk still existed, you would lose money each time you took on any risk. Therefore, progress would no longer happen.

timbuckley 7y ago

Exactly. The only way a pyramid-shaped population chart "works" is if people die soon after (or before) they reach the top of the pyramid. In the long run, the only stable population shape ultimately is a column that is thicker at the base.

e2le 7y ago
Or simply invest in automation that can care for the elderly and relieve the strain and workload on existing services. Of course also get people to live a healthy lifestyle so they don't need to depend on those services as much in their old age.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago

This is much like people who move into a area and then say their house should be the last one to be built as we now have enough houses in town. It seems implausible that we have the exactly correct number of humans so you must mean that we should have less of them. If you think we need less humans on earth, lead by example.

dijit 7y ago
Implying that the parent should kill themselves for pointing out the very real truth that humanity is far, far overpopulating this planet is not exactly civil. I happen to agree with the parent, not because "got mine", and it's not a "culling of people" but forgetting about social issues the world would be better off with less humans. That will never happen though, because no nation wants to be disadvantaged when it comes to population sizes and many people take it as a god given right that their genes be the ones to proliferate. But what's the point in having more of yourself if there's no planet left in 10 generations?
- squish78 7y ago
  So what is a real-world implementation of this notion?
  - dijit 7y ago
    From real life: China's one child policy. From fiction: Dissuading the birth of more than one child, by curbing any benefits heavily (such as maternity leave) or increasing taxes on family homes with more than 3 occupants etc; there are many ways to dissuade people from having children, and we /do/ have declining birth rates in most of the developed world because of that. But, if you listen to my nationalistic friends/family, they believe that "[they] shouldn't have to give up having so many children unless $_country also does" So anything like that needs to be a bit more global, otherwise we have overpopulation in some areas which could lead to a requirement to spread and consume resources from less populated areas, which would potentially have the effect of wiping out nationalities. (hypothetically)

Valmar 7y ago

We certainly need to keep our birth rates stable, though, to make up for those that die for whatever unfortunate reasons.

e2le 7y ago
100% this, invest in families if you want to have better birth rates.