3 ms·

>No, the world and our civilization can support multiples of the population it has according to the statistics. How so? Population growth isn't free and witho

>No, the world and our civilization can support multiples of the population it has according to the statistics. How so? Population growth isn't free and without cost. I'm tired of these BS claims that "look, if we put everyone on the planet shoulder to shoulder, we could all fit in the space of Texas or Poland, therefore the world is not overpopulated and we can keep the population numbers growing multiple times over." The problem is not just about real estate or land. People need food and energy to survive, and as the Ruso-Ukrainian war proved it, the global food and energy supply chain is limited and very sensitive, and several developing nations are already on the brink of social collapse because of the increase in food and energy prices this war caused. How will adding billions more people in developing nations fix this or reduce the risk of this happening again? Making more food for more people also isn't free, it comes at the cost of increase in CO2, and with that, comes more global warming and more extreme weather phenomenons. These wouldn't be such big issues, if all countries on the planet worked together in peace and harmony for the common good, but that's not the case. Even in the EU we can't get members to work together on hot topics like nuclear energy, migration, China or Russia, as each member is following their own personal agenda at the expense of the others. It's even worse in global politics where every country is keeping their cards against their chest with one hand and a knife behind their back with the other. As desirable land, food and energy get scarce, each global power will try to claw as much of it as possible for themselves, leaving the smaller, less powerful countries to fend for themselves at the cost of social unrest, anarchy or even war. We need to come to terms with the fact that having modern society and economic systems be dependent on having an ever increasing population in order to function, was a poorly thought out Ponzi scheme that sounded good post-WW2, but won't scale indefinitely, and isn't sustainable long term, but instead of admitting it, we've been kicking the can down the road ever since.

unity1001 4y ago
We have the capability to produce food for many multiples, house and clothe them along with providing more services. For the existing economic system (capitalism) this is not desirable because it seeks to maximize profits by providing minimum while extracting maximum revenue. Therefore there will never be a lower population level at which things will be 'okay'. The system will introduce scarcity even at lower population levels to maximize profit, and that will cause the same problems. If the system changes to one that prioritizes the fundamentals and well being of others, even the currently existing technology level is enough to support many multiples. Without noting that with new technologies like vertical farming, lab grown food and many more, even more population could be possible. > China or Russia The current Anglosaxon war started against China (not Russia) because the US wants to remove an emerging economic competitor is a gigantic indicator of the ills of the current system. The US think tanks & policy makers openly advocated for this for more than a decade. Those who openly sought this by going to the extent of openly declaring that intention during the elections got elected. Now they are implementing this outrageous intent that so openly and bluntly declared for years. Imperialism - peak capitalism in its final form. It does not seek to do anything good, it only seeks to maximize its profits at whatever cost.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >We have the capability to produce food for many multiples, house and clothe them along with providing more services Yeah, and all that will come at the cost of more environmental damage and more suffering. There is always a price to pay for growth. There is no free lunch here. You're just buying current growth by selling away your future, or the future of the next generations. This winter set new records for warmth weather in Europe and is the price we're paying for the past 20-50 years of growth without thinking of the consequences. >The system [capitalism] will introduce scarcity even at lower population levels to maximize profit, and that will cause the same problems. We had communism as well in my Eastern European country, where all the resources were owned by the state, and there was even more poverty, scarcity and rationing than today because it lacked the competition and efficiencies driven by the free market, so everything just collapsed. We didn't lack housing though so that was at least a big plus.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    > Yeah, and all that will come at the cost of more environmental damage and more suffering. Not at all. The current systemic environmental destruction happens because it is more profitable to do so. There is no money in protecting the environment. Worse - it costs money to do so. So the system wont do it because avoiding doing it is needed due to the profit maximization mechanic of the system. > We tried communism as well in my Eastern European country, where all the resources were owned by the state, and there was even more poverty, scarcity and rationing No Eastern European country suffered from any of those until the US and its Gulf Allies started the economic war against your bloc in late 1970s to starve it of GDP. In fact, Kennedy administration feared in 1960s that everyone in the world would imitate your development model because you were developing way too fast and raised your people from mud houses and barefeet level to apartment blocks and physics education level within the same generation. They thought 'something needed to be done about it'. And they did - it was the Vietnam war. That is called 'the Domino Theory' read about it. Note that if anyone did even a fraction of what the US did to your bloc to the US itself, the US would immediately trigger a nuclear war as the examples with previous, much lesser offenses show. In a way, your bloc sacrificed itself to avoid a delirious, unstable nuclear-armed actor from destroying the human civilization if it couldn't get its way. And Im not using the 'delirious' and 'unstable' words as metaphors - the US strategic documents actually, literally advocate projecting an 'unstable persona'. > it lacked the competition and efficiencies driven by the free market You have no idea about how efficient the free market is yet. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/13/americas-dirty-little-secret-42-million-are-suffering-from-hunger.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/13/americas-dirty-little-secret... Entire Eastern Europe is still protected from much of the free market because it still keeps a lot of social democrat measures that were leftover from your communist era and Europe's 1960s era socialism. Wait until those measures are disappeared to make way for 'the market' through the trojan-horse policies of centrist and right wing neoliberal parties backed by the US.

unity1001 4y ago

We have the capability to produce food for many multiples, house and clothe them along with providing more services. For the existing economic system (capitalism) this is not desirable because it seeks to maximize profits by providing minimum while extracting maximum revenue. Therefore there will never be a lower population level at which things will be 'okay'. The system will introduce scarcity even at lower population levels to maximize profit, and that will cause the same problems. If the system changes to one that prioritizes the fundamentals and well being of others, even the currently existing technology level is enough to support many multiples. Without noting that with new technologies like vertical farming, lab grown food and many more, even more population could be possible. > China or Russia The current Anglosaxon war started against China (not Russia) because the US wants to remove an emerging economic competitor is a gigantic indicator of the ills of the current system. The US think tanks & policy makers openly advocated for this for more than a decade. Those who openly sought this by going to the extent of openly declaring that intention during the elections got elected. Now they are implementing this outrageous intent that so openly and bluntly declared for years. Imperialism - peak capitalism in its final form. It does not seek to do anything good, it only seeks to maximize its profits at whatever cost.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>We have the capability to produce food for many multiples, house and clothe them along with providing more services Yeah, and all that will come at the cost of more environmental damage and more suffering. There is always a price to pay for growth. There is no free lunch here. You're just buying current growth by selling away your future, or the future of the next generations. This winter set new records for warmth weather in Europe and is the price we're paying for the past 20-50 years of growth without thinking of the consequences. >The system [capitalism] will introduce scarcity even at lower population levels to maximize profit, and that will cause the same problems. We had communism as well in my Eastern European country, where all the resources were owned by the state, and there was even more poverty, scarcity and rationing than today because it lacked the competition and efficiencies driven by the free market, so everything just collapsed. We didn't lack housing though so that was at least a big plus.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > Yeah, and all that will come at the cost of more environmental damage and more suffering. Not at all. The current systemic environmental destruction happens because it is more profitable to do so. There is no money in protecting the environment. Worse - it costs money to do so. So the system wont do it because avoiding doing it is needed due to the profit maximization mechanic of the system. > We tried communism as well in my Eastern European country, where all the resources were owned by the state, and there was even more poverty, scarcity and rationing No Eastern European country suffered from any of those until the US and its Gulf Allies started the economic war against your bloc in late 1970s to starve it of GDP. In fact, Kennedy administration feared in 1960s that everyone in the world would imitate your development model because you were developing way too fast and raised your people from mud houses and barefeet level to apartment blocks and physics education level within the same generation. They thought 'something needed to be done about it'. And they did - it was the Vietnam war. That is called 'the Domino Theory' read about it. Note that if anyone did even a fraction of what the US did to your bloc to the US itself, the US would immediately trigger a nuclear war as the examples with previous, much lesser offenses show. In a way, your bloc sacrificed itself to avoid a delirious, unstable nuclear-armed actor from destroying the human civilization if it couldn't get its way. And Im not using the 'delirious' and 'unstable' words as metaphors - the US strategic documents actually, literally advocate projecting an 'unstable persona'. > it lacked the competition and efficiencies driven by the free market You have no idea about how efficient the free market is yet. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/13/americas-dirty-little-secret-42-million-are-suffering-from-hunger.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/13/americas-dirty-little-secret... Entire Eastern Europe is still protected from much of the free market because it still keeps a lot of social democrat measures that were leftover from your communist era and Europe's 1960s era socialism. Wait until those measures are disappeared to make way for 'the market' through the trojan-horse policies of centrist and right wing neoliberal parties backed by the US.