5 ms·

There are way more people on Earth than Earth can sustain in what we consider a life worth living. As bloodthirsty capitalism pulls more and more people out of

There are way more people on Earth than Earth can sustain in what we consider a life worth living. As bloodthirsty capitalism pulls more and more people out of poverty we discover that putting a steak on everyone's table and a fresh car in everyone's garage is too taxing on the atmosphere, wildlife, forests and what not. We seem to have to choose between a smaller luxurious population and billions and billions of people living in pods eating synthetic food.

rayiner 6y ago
> There are way to many people on Earth than Earth can sustain in what we consider a life worth living This point of view comes up a lot in connection with climate change, and I always find it incredibly offensive. My dad was reminiscing the other day about his happy childhood growing up in a village in Bangladesh in the 1950s. This was back when 1 in 3 kids didn’t live to the age of 5. Even an RCP 8.5 scenario isn’t going to turn the developed world into Bangladesh circus 1950. Hell it won’t turn Bangladesh into Bangladesh in 1950. People will still have a standard of living that makes life incredibly worthwhile, because we as human beings were designed to need little to find life worthwhile. That’s not an argument against investing in renewables or whatever. But the Malthusian arguments about climate change are quite misanthropic. Trump got in trouble for calling places “shithole countries.” But nobody blinks and eye when someone casually implies that people in those countries would have been better off never having been born.
- jojobas 6y ago
  One may be happy in a mud hut eating nothing but corn, but generally not after getting used to proper construction, sanitation, food etc. Recent history shows that there's no holding previously backwards countries from advancing their consumption. As Russians joke, the global famine will come when the Chinese start using forks. China, India and SE Asia are quickly upping their per-capita production and consumption of carbon-heavy goods. Brazil doesn't destroy Amazon out of spite. We have no moral right to say "Nonono, you can't do what we did in the 20th century and live like us!".
  - throwaway3699 6y ago
    > We have no moral right to say "Nonono, you can't do what we did in the 20th century and live like us!". Yes, we do. Now that we know what the effects of climate change could be. That being said, we do have a moral duty to help out. Populations tend to grow slower when they become "more advanced", so it might not be the end of the world.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - i_haz_rabies 6y ago
      We would have a moral right if we repented and retrofitted our society to be sustainable. We're not doing that.
- captain_price7 6y ago
  I agree with your broader point- one shouldn't tell others that their life isn't worth living. But I'm afraid maybe you're downplaying the struggles a poor Bangladeshi have to go through. I currently live in Bangladesh. And my father made a off-handed comment few days ago about how there isn't many "thin" people in our village anymore. When he grew up in 60s, a big chunk of our village people didn't have two meals regularly, people dying of hunger wasn't so uncommon. Just two days ago a doctor friend told me hundreds of people die in his hospital every week due to lack of proper equipment. I have several times witnessed the heartbreaking scene in pharmacies where people ask for the price of a medicine, and then turn away without buying anything after hearing the price. Overpopulation at least partly contributes to this, if not the biggest contributor. It may not be a global problem, but it definitely is a problem for a country like Bangladesh (and maybe India too). I'm not saying this people's life is worthless, but I would definitely not want a new generation of people to go through this. Population control here is not just the pragmatic and necessary option, it's also the most humane thing to do.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    My dad works in public health, including in Bangladesh, I’m well aware of the issues. (That said, I think the anti-natalism of the international development field is under appreciated as a double-edged sword, as countries like South Korea and Singapore are beginning to find out.) My point isn’t in disagreement with yours. Of course being poor is worse than being richer. My point is that even in Bangladesh, the level of prosperity is sufficient to exceed the threshold for humans to find life “worthwhile.”
    - jonnycomputer 6y ago
      Thank you both for expanding my perspective.
vixen99 6y ago
We? '... in what we consider a life worth living'?
lucian1900 6y ago
Capitalism is the cause of poverty, not what ends it. If you look at the last decade, global poverty outside China has increased. Only within China has it decreased, for now by enough to offset the rest of the world. The problem is the constant expansion (which comes with warfare and extreme waste) that capitalism mandates.
- lupire 6y ago
  China is capitalist and imperialist.
  - lucian1900 6y ago
    It allows limited forms of private property and profit seeking in order to develop the productive forces. It’s a way to avoid invasion or sanctions by the US while keeping the working class in control of the state. China doesn’t extract profits through the export of capital at usury rates from other countries at gunpoint, though. It is not imperialist.
    - jojobas 6y ago
      China allows sweatshops that work people to suicide. CCP has nothing to do with the working class, it developed it's own bureaucratic class. Chairman Xi hasn't worked a day outside power structures as he was born to a bigwig. China does extract profits through usury, most of Africa is proof to that. It also buys up Western countries through universities and politicians. There's no honest way to look at it as anything else than an autocratic empire.
      - lucian1900 6y ago
        China is a poor country that was forced to accept some level of exploitation to avoid invasion or blockade. Thankfully the working conditions have been improving steadily and many of the exploitative practices by foreign companies are now banned. Most CPC members are working class, especially in the leadership. They’re almost 10% of the population, of course they’d be a typical sample. China offers loans for development with mutual gain, not extraction of profits. Even just comparing interest rates to the IMF is telling, let alone the many loans forgiven. Talk to some Africans affected by the Belt and Road Initiative, they’re overwhelmingly in favour.
sep_field 6y ago
you call what we have a life worth living? we'd be better off dead.

rayiner 6y ago

> There are way to many people on Earth than Earth can sustain in what we consider a life worth living This point of view comes up a lot in connection with climate change, and I always find it incredibly offensive. My dad was reminiscing the other day about his happy childhood growing up in a village in Bangladesh in the 1950s. This was back when 1 in 3 kids didn’t live to the age of 5. Even an RCP 8.5 scenario isn’t going to turn the developed world into Bangladesh circus 1950. Hell it won’t turn Bangladesh into Bangladesh in 1950. People will still have a standard of living that makes life incredibly worthwhile, because we as human beings were designed to need little to find life worthwhile. That’s not an argument against investing in renewables or whatever. But the Malthusian arguments about climate change are quite misanthropic. Trump got in trouble for calling places “shithole countries.” But nobody blinks and eye when someone casually implies that people in those countries would have been better off never having been born.

jojobas 6y ago
One may be happy in a mud hut eating nothing but corn, but generally not after getting used to proper construction, sanitation, food etc. Recent history shows that there's no holding previously backwards countries from advancing their consumption. As Russians joke, the global famine will come when the Chinese start using forks. China, India and SE Asia are quickly upping their per-capita production and consumption of carbon-heavy goods. Brazil doesn't destroy Amazon out of spite. We have no moral right to say "Nonono, you can't do what we did in the 20th century and live like us!".
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  > We have no moral right to say "Nonono, you can't do what we did in the 20th century and live like us!". Yes, we do. Now that we know what the effects of climate change could be. That being said, we do have a moral duty to help out. Populations tend to grow slower when they become "more advanced", so it might not be the end of the world.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - i_haz_rabies 6y ago
    We would have a moral right if we repented and retrofitted our society to be sustainable. We're not doing that.
captain_price7 6y ago
I agree with your broader point- one shouldn't tell others that their life isn't worth living. But I'm afraid maybe you're downplaying the struggles a poor Bangladeshi have to go through. I currently live in Bangladesh. And my father made a off-handed comment few days ago about how there isn't many "thin" people in our village anymore. When he grew up in 60s, a big chunk of our village people didn't have two meals regularly, people dying of hunger wasn't so uncommon. Just two days ago a doctor friend told me hundreds of people die in his hospital every week due to lack of proper equipment. I have several times witnessed the heartbreaking scene in pharmacies where people ask for the price of a medicine, and then turn away without buying anything after hearing the price. Overpopulation at least partly contributes to this, if not the biggest contributor. It may not be a global problem, but it definitely is a problem for a country like Bangladesh (and maybe India too). I'm not saying this people's life is worthless, but I would definitely not want a new generation of people to go through this. Population control here is not just the pragmatic and necessary option, it's also the most humane thing to do.
- rayiner 6y ago
  My dad works in public health, including in Bangladesh, I’m well aware of the issues. (That said, I think the anti-natalism of the international development field is under appreciated as a double-edged sword, as countries like South Korea and Singapore are beginning to find out.) My point isn’t in disagreement with yours. Of course being poor is worse than being richer. My point is that even in Bangladesh, the level of prosperity is sufficient to exceed the threshold for humans to find life “worthwhile.”
  - jonnycomputer 6y ago
    Thank you both for expanding my perspective.

vixen99 6y ago

We? '... in what we consider a life worth living'?

lucian1900 6y ago

Capitalism is the cause of poverty, not what ends it. If you look at the last decade, global poverty outside China has increased. Only within China has it decreased, for now by enough to offset the rest of the world. The problem is the constant expansion (which comes with warfare and extreme waste) that capitalism mandates.

lupire 6y ago
China is capitalist and imperialist.
- lucian1900 6y ago
  It allows limited forms of private property and profit seeking in order to develop the productive forces. It’s a way to avoid invasion or sanctions by the US while keeping the working class in control of the state. China doesn’t extract profits through the export of capital at usury rates from other countries at gunpoint, though. It is not imperialist.
  - jojobas 6y ago
    China allows sweatshops that work people to suicide. CCP has nothing to do with the working class, it developed it's own bureaucratic class. Chairman Xi hasn't worked a day outside power structures as he was born to a bigwig. China does extract profits through usury, most of Africa is proof to that. It also buys up Western countries through universities and politicians. There's no honest way to look at it as anything else than an autocratic empire.
    - lucian1900 6y ago
      China is a poor country that was forced to accept some level of exploitation to avoid invasion or blockade. Thankfully the working conditions have been improving steadily and many of the exploitative practices by foreign companies are now banned. Most CPC members are working class, especially in the leadership. They’re almost 10% of the population, of course they’d be a typical sample. China offers loans for development with mutual gain, not extraction of profits. Even just comparing interest rates to the IMF is telling, let alone the many loans forgiven. Talk to some Africans affected by the Belt and Road Initiative, they’re overwhelmingly in favour.

sep_field 6y ago

you call what we have a life worth living? we'd be better off dead.