3 ms·

> would never reach 8B population You make it sound like that's a positive achievement. There are "Limits To Growth" [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th

> would never reach 8B population You make it sound like that's a positive achievement. There are "Limits To Growth" [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

TeMPOraL 3y ago
Which we won't overcome without huge bureaucracies either. Also, while the population growth itself may not be a positive achievement directly, it's kind of necessary for all the scientific, technological and cultural achievements. Unless you don't see those as positive either - in which case I don't think there's anything left to discuss.
- naasking 3y ago
  That's just more of what the OP was pointing out: why are you assuming overcoming those limits is good? This is just natural selection in action: only people who are good at slotting into bureaucracy and being well-behaved cogs in the wheel will thrive in this environment, and other types of humans will die out. This exact same argument suggests we should not tolerate indigenous people who live separate from civilization. Adapt or die right? But this conclusion is typically quite abhorrent to the same type of people who advocate for your position. Can't have it both ways.
  - dvdkon 3y ago
    I think both viewpoints (contemporary civilisation is good and we should let "uncivilised" people live without interference) are reconcilable: I can believe that modern bureaucratic liberal democracy is the best system we have, partly because it allows for dissenting views, partly because of other reasons. At the same time I can advocate for letting groups of people control their territory and form states that aren't liberal democracies, since that's yet another form of allowing for dissenting views. This runs into problems for global matters (global climate change and pollution) and conflicts with an overriding belief in a global morality (depending on how much you are willing to entertain the idea that your idea of morality isn't the "correct" one), but some compromise variation of this idea is certainly self-consistent.
    - naasking 3y ago
      Define "uncivilized". If I choose to occupy a national park and live off grid and disconnected from society, do I qualify? Or is some kind of ancestry on a land required? If so, why? Isn't such a requirement kind of arbitrary? Why does my accidental birth into this society necessitate that I must slot into this bureaucracy? > At the same time I can advocate for letting groups of people control their territory and form states that aren't liberal democracies, since that's yet another form of allowing for dissenting views. What if they want to home school all of their children, do they have to abide by some kind education standard? The bureaucracy will come for you for any choice it finds unpalatable. I don't see a way to reconcile these without a lot of special pleading. In the end, a form of natural selection will dominate and only the type of people who can fit well into the most optimal bureaucracies will thrive. Maintaining indigenous rights and the rights of "uncivilized" humans will be simply a curiosity, like how we keep animals in a zoo, rather than some coherent recognition of an inherent right to exist and live apart. I'm not taking a particular side on this question here, I used to be all pro-civilization, science, research and expansion into space, etc. in the Star Trek sense, but I've increasingly recognized the natural selection aspects of this and the apparently inherent incompatibility with liberty.
      - TeMPOraL 3y ago
        > I used to be all pro-civilization, science, research and expansion into space, etc. in the Star Trek sense, but I've increasingly recognized the natural selection aspects of this and the apparently inherent incompatibility with liberty. Oh, that. I too have a gnawing feeling that progress of technology and civilization is fundamentally incompatible with individual autonomy. At the very least, because to the extent new advancement put more of potentially destructive power in the hands of individuals, the more control the civilization needs over said individuals, in order to protect itself from any of such individuals going rogue and using their power destructively. That's one thought, I have couple more like this, and they all add up to "progress and civilization, or personal autonomy, pick one".
        naasking 3y ago
  - almostnormal 3y ago
    > This is just natural selection in action: only people who are good at slotting into bureaucracy and being well-behaved cogs in the wheel will thrive in this environment, and other types of humans will die out. It would require that slotting into bureaucracy increases the ability and opportunity to procreate for the individual over not slotting into bureaucracy. I doubt that is the case. Strong adherence to a bureaucratic lifestyle significantly reduces the number of offsprings compared to a more chaotic way of living.
    - naasking 3y ago
      I think it does to some degree. The chaotic life may lead to more accidental pregnancies, but also higher mortality of every kind. Stable, family-value oriented, borderline conservative belief systems like those circa 1950s US leads to steady population growth. Other systems, like where Western countries are now with negative native population growth and considerably less social cohesion, are possibly less stable long-term. Time will tell.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  "scientific, technological and cultural achievements" are not a brute force effort.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    They're stochastic in nature and driven mostly by us hitting actual limits, both of which improve with growing population. Things may be different now, because we've crossed a meaningful threshold in how the world operates, but - AFAIK - at least until recently, overall development level and rate of advancement closely tracked population size.
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      > closely tracked population size65;5402;1c They tracked it. That's all. I see no convincing argument that advanced civilisations occur only in a pool of enormous labour surplus. The utilitarian in me, and the compassionate human, prefers a world that takes 50,000 years to reach a sustainable, comfortable technological society with a smaller population, than one that grows in 5,000 years to far beyond it's capacity, overproducing consumerist junk, poisoning its planet and seeing billions dying in wars and famines so that a few of us can bow down before the altar of "growth", Maybe the fact that we have to kill so many of our own kind in order for one percent to live in luxury and pat themselves on the back about "achievements" means we're not really as smart as we think we are as a species?

TeMPOraL 3y ago

Which we won't overcome without huge bureaucracies either. Also, while the population growth itself may not be a positive achievement directly, it's kind of necessary for all the scientific, technological and cultural achievements. Unless you don't see those as positive either - in which case I don't think there's anything left to discuss.

naasking 3y ago
That's just more of what the OP was pointing out: why are you assuming overcoming those limits is good? This is just natural selection in action: only people who are good at slotting into bureaucracy and being well-behaved cogs in the wheel will thrive in this environment, and other types of humans will die out. This exact same argument suggests we should not tolerate indigenous people who live separate from civilization. Adapt or die right? But this conclusion is typically quite abhorrent to the same type of people who advocate for your position. Can't have it both ways.
- dvdkon 3y ago
  I think both viewpoints (contemporary civilisation is good and we should let "uncivilised" people live without interference) are reconcilable: I can believe that modern bureaucratic liberal democracy is the best system we have, partly because it allows for dissenting views, partly because of other reasons. At the same time I can advocate for letting groups of people control their territory and form states that aren't liberal democracies, since that's yet another form of allowing for dissenting views. This runs into problems for global matters (global climate change and pollution) and conflicts with an overriding belief in a global morality (depending on how much you are willing to entertain the idea that your idea of morality isn't the "correct" one), but some compromise variation of this idea is certainly self-consistent.
  - naasking 3y ago
    Define "uncivilized". If I choose to occupy a national park and live off grid and disconnected from society, do I qualify? Or is some kind of ancestry on a land required? If so, why? Isn't such a requirement kind of arbitrary? Why does my accidental birth into this society necessitate that I must slot into this bureaucracy? > At the same time I can advocate for letting groups of people control their territory and form states that aren't liberal democracies, since that's yet another form of allowing for dissenting views. What if they want to home school all of their children, do they have to abide by some kind education standard? The bureaucracy will come for you for any choice it finds unpalatable. I don't see a way to reconcile these without a lot of special pleading. In the end, a form of natural selection will dominate and only the type of people who can fit well into the most optimal bureaucracies will thrive. Maintaining indigenous rights and the rights of "uncivilized" humans will be simply a curiosity, like how we keep animals in a zoo, rather than some coherent recognition of an inherent right to exist and live apart. I'm not taking a particular side on this question here, I used to be all pro-civilization, science, research and expansion into space, etc. in the Star Trek sense, but I've increasingly recognized the natural selection aspects of this and the apparently inherent incompatibility with liberty.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      > I used to be all pro-civilization, science, research and expansion into space, etc. in the Star Trek sense, but I've increasingly recognized the natural selection aspects of this and the apparently inherent incompatibility with liberty. Oh, that. I too have a gnawing feeling that progress of technology and civilization is fundamentally incompatible with individual autonomy. At the very least, because to the extent new advancement put more of potentially destructive power in the hands of individuals, the more control the civilization needs over said individuals, in order to protect itself from any of such individuals going rogue and using their power destructively. That's one thought, I have couple more like this, and they all add up to "progress and civilization, or personal autonomy, pick one".
      - naasking 3y ago
- almostnormal 3y ago
  > This is just natural selection in action: only people who are good at slotting into bureaucracy and being well-behaved cogs in the wheel will thrive in this environment, and other types of humans will die out. It would require that slotting into bureaucracy increases the ability and opportunity to procreate for the individual over not slotting into bureaucracy. I doubt that is the case. Strong adherence to a bureaucratic lifestyle significantly reduces the number of offsprings compared to a more chaotic way of living.
  - naasking 3y ago
    I think it does to some degree. The chaotic life may lead to more accidental pregnancies, but also higher mortality of every kind. Stable, family-value oriented, borderline conservative belief systems like those circa 1950s US leads to steady population growth. Other systems, like where Western countries are now with negative native population growth and considerably less social cohesion, are possibly less stable long-term. Time will tell.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
"scientific, technological and cultural achievements" are not a brute force effort.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  They're stochastic in nature and driven mostly by us hitting actual limits, both of which improve with growing population. Things may be different now, because we've crossed a meaningful threshold in how the world operates, but - AFAIK - at least until recently, overall development level and rate of advancement closely tracked population size.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    > closely tracked population size65;5402;1c They tracked it. That's all. I see no convincing argument that advanced civilisations occur only in a pool of enormous labour surplus. The utilitarian in me, and the compassionate human, prefers a world that takes 50,000 years to reach a sustainable, comfortable technological society with a smaller population, than one that grows in 5,000 years to far beyond it's capacity, overproducing consumerist junk, poisoning its planet and seeing billions dying in wars and famines so that a few of us can bow down before the altar of "growth", Maybe the fact that we have to kill so many of our own kind in order for one percent to live in luxury and pat themselves on the back about "achievements" means we're not really as smart as we think we are as a species?