4 ms·

> They cannot be utilized because they live in shitty conditions created by the too large population we already have. Or they just live in a shitty place under

> They cannot be utilized because they live in shitty conditions created by the too large population we already have. Or they just live in a shitty place under some autocratic/dictator/religious rule. I'm not sure that has much to do with the population size.

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
Don't you think those bad leaders would've had a harder time coming into power if there had been less contention over resources? If it's clear that there's plenty to go around you can just abandon a bad leader. If not, then maybe tolerating them is a necessary evil (because they control the food).
- pixl97 3y ago
  >Don't you think those bad leaders would've had a harder time coming into power if there had been less contention over resources? No. For most of human history we've been lead by shitty autocratic leaders. Now, when there's too little to go around we're more apt to go to war and/or have population migrations which is a different subject.
- matwood 3y ago
  We have an abundance of resources, and ship things like food and medicine all over the world. But because of shitty leaders access is the issue. So the only way to address the issue is to get more resources sourced locally. > If it's clear that there's plenty to go around you can just abandon a bad leader. If only it were that easy.
  - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
    > the only way to address the issue is to get more resources sourced locally. I don't know about "only", but I agree that that's the best move: Fewer labyrinthine dependencies, more providing directly for yourself and your neighbors. But isn't the difficulty of that proposition a direct function of population density? If "locally" means 1000 people on 100 acres, that's a lot different than if "locally" means 10000 people on 10 acres. --- To put it differently, premises: 1. The planet can sustain 100M of us 2. The planet cannot sustain 100B of us 3. There is uncertainty about whether the planet can sustain 8B of us Conclusion: The safer direction for our population to go is down.

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago

Don't you think those bad leaders would've had a harder time coming into power if there had been less contention over resources? If it's clear that there's plenty to go around you can just abandon a bad leader. If not, then maybe tolerating them is a necessary evil (because they control the food).

pixl97 3y ago
>Don't you think those bad leaders would've had a harder time coming into power if there had been less contention over resources? No. For most of human history we've been lead by shitty autocratic leaders. Now, when there's too little to go around we're more apt to go to war and/or have population migrations which is a different subject.
matwood 3y ago
We have an abundance of resources, and ship things like food and medicine all over the world. But because of shitty leaders access is the issue. So the only way to address the issue is to get more resources sourced locally. > If it's clear that there's plenty to go around you can just abandon a bad leader. If only it were that easy.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  > the only way to address the issue is to get more resources sourced locally. I don't know about "only", but I agree that that's the best move: Fewer labyrinthine dependencies, more providing directly for yourself and your neighbors. But isn't the difficulty of that proposition a direct function of population density? If "locally" means 1000 people on 100 acres, that's a lot different than if "locally" means 10000 people on 10 acres. --- To put it differently, premises: 1. The planet can sustain 100M of us 2. The planet cannot sustain 100B of us 3. There is uncertainty about whether the planet can sustain 8B of us Conclusion: The safer direction for our population to go is down.