4 ms·

>I'm sort of unclear where you are goin with your argument? The argument is that its magical thinking that the earth, which has finite resources, can support a

>I'm sort of unclear where you are goin with your argument? The argument is that its magical thinking that the earth, which has finite resources, can support an infinite number of people, if we only, "manage the resources right". Its a question of reality, not morality, but unfortunately some have a hard time separating the two concepts. > Are you arguing we need to kill of people or economically retard developing countries energy use? Neither of those seem reasonable stances so I am left wondering what you see as the path forward and what value you see in advancing your argument. Nobody has to be killed off, but what we should be doing is setting as a goal sustainable population levels in the future through reproduction. This isn't to suggest people should be prevented from having children, but that our policy goals should incentive having fewer children. Right now are policies are the opposite - we offer subsidies to people to have children. What if we offered subsidies to people who didn't have any children? Of course people will inevitably raise the straw man economic argument, "we need more young people to pay for our older people". The fact is that we have a glut of unskilled labor that is only growing due to automation and increased overpopulation. The unsustainability of our debt-based economy is, unfortunately, not a function of population and will have to be reckoned with on its own.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
XorNot 5y ago
This is a bizarre argument to make in a world where every 1st world nation is on the cusp of negative population growth. The biggest problem we have is we have is that not enough people have access to a western lifestyle, which has been extremely effective at reducing birthrates to or below replacement levels. Population-based sustainability arguments are a deflection from the actual hard work, which is reducing CO2 emissions and preserving ecosystems. Because they have nothing to say and no knowledge to contribute about actual sustainability, and reliably go nowhere.
shkkmo 5y ago
> its magical thinking that the earth, which has finite resources, can support an infinite number of people, if we only, "manage the resources right" I have not met a single person that thinks the earth can support an infinite number of people. If that is the position you are arguing against, I believe it is a strawman and a waste of your time. > Nobody has to be killed off, but what we should be doing is setting as a goal sustainable population levels in the future through reproduction. Global population growth has been slowing for half a century. If you are concerned about reducing it further, western "baby subsidies" aren't a good place to start. The main place you would have to look is Africa since that is expected be the source for the majority of population growth over the next 50 years. If this line of thought is still making sense to you, you are veering dangerously close to ecofacism and genocide. IMHO, the only remotely ethical way to reduce population growth is to mirror the factors that lead to declining birth rates in the west (i.e. prosperity and social stability.) This means that the only ethical way to reach sustainability is to find ways to be prosperous and sustainable. To do that we must find ways to aproximate the western standards of living in sustainable ways.
- stouset 5y ago
  > To do that we must find ways to aproximate the western standards of living in sustainable ways. And this is where we come full circle to magical thinking. The Earth is struggling to support the current number of people living at western standards. “Approximating” it for a few billion more people will require even more resources than we use today no matter how green you theorize we make things. This is never going to be possible, no matter how much nicer it would be if we could make it happen. We’re simply too far past the point where it’s a plausible solution. Which, I want to be clear, is super awful. It would be great if that were still an option but it isn’t even close. > Global population growth has been slowing for half a century. Growth has been slowing which means… we’re still growing. At a time when we’ve blown past the CO2 threshold to reach +2degC with barely a speed bump. That’s going to happen even if we stopped emitting today and started sucking CO2 out of the air. Which means the actual reality we face is going to be much worse. > ecofascism If the only real argument you have against this is ad hominem, you’re on shaky ground. Unless we cut back our resource consumption—not just the growth rate but the real absolute amount—these things you find so unpalatable will happen. Wars will be fought over resources, hundreds of millions will be displaced and/or starve due to lack of fresh water and arable land, and a host of other increasingly displeasant situations I don’t care to list. Do I have any practical answers to how we avoid those things? Of course not. Nobody does! But calling people epithets for simply pointing out the abysmal future humans have wrought upon ourselves is childish. Maybe you disagree that we’re past a point of no return. That’s completely fine. I think the overwhelming quantity of evidence is in my camp but we can disagree here. But if you take a minute to consider that there’s some point where these things are true, what would your perspective be if we were there?
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > The Earth is struggling to support the current number of people living at western standards. We are having significant effects on the climate and ecology, but I don't think it is accurate to say the earth is struggling to support us. > Growth has been slowing which means… we’re still growing. At a time when we’ve blown past the CO2 threshold to reach +2degC with barely a speed bump. I've repeatedly acknowledged the issues we face with global warming. Halting population growth will not solve that problem alone. However you keep bringing up the thermodynamic limit amd the declining population growth and a huge impact on when we reach that limit that you seem to refuse to acknowledge. > If the only real argument you have against this is ad hominem, you’re on shaky ground. I made no ad hominem attack nor did I call you any names, nor did I ascribe any beliefs to you. I meant to be using "you" in the general form to explain where I see a particular line of reasoning headed. I probably should have used a different general form for clarity and I appologize for any confusion. You've explained elsewhere that you aren't going anywhere with your argument and don't believe solutions exist. > Maybe you disagree that we’re past a point of no return I don't believe there is a single point of no return, but I do believe there are a large number of inflection points that if you pass make the problems haeder to solve. We have passed some of them and there are more on the way. The longer we wait to really take these problems seriously, the hardee they are to solve I am still unclear what the "magical thinking" is...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

XorNot 5y ago

This is a bizarre argument to make in a world where every 1st world nation is on the cusp of negative population growth. The biggest problem we have is we have is that not enough people have access to a western lifestyle, which has been extremely effective at reducing birthrates to or below replacement levels. Population-based sustainability arguments are a deflection from the actual hard work, which is reducing CO2 emissions and preserving ecosystems. Because they have nothing to say and no knowledge to contribute about actual sustainability, and reliably go nowhere.

shkkmo 5y ago

> its magical thinking that the earth, which has finite resources, can support an infinite number of people, if we only, "manage the resources right" I have not met a single person that thinks the earth can support an infinite number of people. If that is the position you are arguing against, I believe it is a strawman and a waste of your time. > Nobody has to be killed off, but what we should be doing is setting as a goal sustainable population levels in the future through reproduction. Global population growth has been slowing for half a century. If you are concerned about reducing it further, western "baby subsidies" aren't a good place to start. The main place you would have to look is Africa since that is expected be the source for the majority of population growth over the next 50 years. If this line of thought is still making sense to you, you are veering dangerously close to ecofacism and genocide. IMHO, the only remotely ethical way to reduce population growth is to mirror the factors that lead to declining birth rates in the west (i.e. prosperity and social stability.) This means that the only ethical way to reach sustainability is to find ways to be prosperous and sustainable. To do that we must find ways to aproximate the western standards of living in sustainable ways.

stouset 5y ago
> To do that we must find ways to aproximate the western standards of living in sustainable ways. And this is where we come full circle to magical thinking. The Earth is struggling to support the current number of people living at western standards. “Approximating” it for a few billion more people will require even more resources than we use today no matter how green you theorize we make things. This is never going to be possible, no matter how much nicer it would be if we could make it happen. We’re simply too far past the point where it’s a plausible solution. Which, I want to be clear, is super awful. It would be great if that were still an option but it isn’t even close. > Global population growth has been slowing for half a century. Growth has been slowing which means… we’re still growing. At a time when we’ve blown past the CO2 threshold to reach +2degC with barely a speed bump. That’s going to happen even if we stopped emitting today and started sucking CO2 out of the air. Which means the actual reality we face is going to be much worse. > ecofascism If the only real argument you have against this is ad hominem, you’re on shaky ground. Unless we cut back our resource consumption—not just the growth rate but the real absolute amount—these things you find so unpalatable will happen. Wars will be fought over resources, hundreds of millions will be displaced and/or starve due to lack of fresh water and arable land, and a host of other increasingly displeasant situations I don’t care to list. Do I have any practical answers to how we avoid those things? Of course not. Nobody does! But calling people epithets for simply pointing out the abysmal future humans have wrought upon ourselves is childish. Maybe you disagree that we’re past a point of no return. That’s completely fine. I think the overwhelming quantity of evidence is in my camp but we can disagree here. But if you take a minute to consider that there’s some point where these things are true, what would your perspective be if we were there?
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > The Earth is struggling to support the current number of people living at western standards. We are having significant effects on the climate and ecology, but I don't think it is accurate to say the earth is struggling to support us. > Growth has been slowing which means… we’re still growing. At a time when we’ve blown past the CO2 threshold to reach +2degC with barely a speed bump. I've repeatedly acknowledged the issues we face with global warming. Halting population growth will not solve that problem alone. However you keep bringing up the thermodynamic limit amd the declining population growth and a huge impact on when we reach that limit that you seem to refuse to acknowledge. > If the only real argument you have against this is ad hominem, you’re on shaky ground. I made no ad hominem attack nor did I call you any names, nor did I ascribe any beliefs to you. I meant to be using "you" in the general form to explain where I see a particular line of reasoning headed. I probably should have used a different general form for clarity and I appologize for any confusion. You've explained elsewhere that you aren't going anywhere with your argument and don't believe solutions exist. > Maybe you disagree that we’re past a point of no return I don't believe there is a single point of no return, but I do believe there are a large number of inflection points that if you pass make the problems haeder to solve. We have passed some of them and there are more on the way. The longer we wait to really take these problems seriously, the hardee they are to solve I am still unclear what the "magical thinking" is...