3 ms·

> The logistic model especially assumes that the carrying capacity is constant. Yes, but the model easily accommodates scenarios in which more and more sustena

by lutusp 13y ago

> The logistic model especially assumes that the carrying capacity is constant. Yes, but the model easily accommodates scenarios in which more and more sustenance is squeezed out of the environment, which is the primary argument of the deniers. Finally, though, because big loaves of bread don't give birth to little rug-rat loaves of bread, the Logistic function predicts the same outcome -- mass birth balanced by mass death. I'm not saying there's a solution to this problem -- there isn't -- only that people who deny that it's a problem are living in a fantasy.

pdonis 13y ago
I'm not saying there's a solution to this problem -- there isn't It seems to me that you actually agree with the article's claim that the primary problem is social. You just don't agree with the article's claim that the problem can be solved; basically you don't think humans will be able to come to grips with the social changes that would be required to manage ourselves as a species responsibly. Is that a fair statement of your position?
- lutusp 13y ago
  > You just don't agree with the article's claim that the problem can be solved ... That's correct. The article relies on a common logical error, to wit: catastrophe hasn't overtaken us yet, and that stands as evidence that it cannot ever happen, i.e. the past predicts the future. It's one thing to accept that we can't solve population problems by pointing fingers at other people. But it's quite another to try to claim the problem doesn't exist at all. > basically you don't think humans will be able to come to grips with the social changes that would be required to manage ourselves as a species responsibly. It's a bit more complicated than that. In a mixed population of people who can grasp the nature of biological limits, and others who cannot, those who cannot eventually become the entire future population -- people congenitally indisposed to act intelligently. It's the inevitable outcome of natural selection. That's an easy problem to state, but impossible to do anything about without abandoning all civilized standards of behavior. If we do nothing, mass death becomes the problem. If we try to "solve" the problem, fascist and eugenic political measures become the problem. That's not any kind of choice. My point? This isn't a movie in which everything gets resolved in the third act. All our choices are bad ones, but the worst is to imagine the problem doesn't exist, as the author of the linked article tries to do.
  - pdonis 13y ago
    In a mixed population of people who can grasp the nature of biological limits, and others who cannot, those who cannot eventually become the entire future population -- people congenitally indisposed to act intelligently. It's the inevitable outcome of natural selection. Yes, I see you make this argument on your page on evolution that you linked to. The only possible flaw that I can see is that you say it is impossible to do anything about without abandoning all civilized standards of behavior I'm not saying I have a solution that doesn't require that; but I'm not sure that our only option is giving up on trying to find one. I.e., instead of "impossible" in the quote above I would put "extremely difficult". But I admit that's purely a matter of opinion on my part.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > I'm not sure that our only option is giving up on trying to find one. No one is suggesting "giving up". In any case, it's not in the nature of science to give up on searching for solutions. But as things stand, there's no obvious solution. > instead of "impossible" in the quote above I would put "extremely difficult". My use of "impossible" was only with respect to measures that modify the behavior of individuals by force. That's impossible without abandoning civilized standards. I don't normally use the word "impossible" without good reason.
      - pdonis 13y ago
        My use of "impossible" was only with respect to measures that modify the behavior of individuals by force. That's impossible without abandoning civilized standards. Ok, yes, I agree with this.
bayesianhorse 13y ago
"Squeezing out more resources" isn't exactly what's happening. Agricultural technology is still progressing and we could probably feed any population growth beyond any current prediction of human population.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Agricultural technology is still progressing and we could probably feed any population growth beyond any current prediction of human population. We already can't feed our present numbers, or haven't you been paying attention? http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20f... Quote: "The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that nearly 870 million people of the 7.1 billion people in the world, or one in eight, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2010-2012." I love hearing from environmental deniers, who say there's no limit to how many people we can feed -- people who ignore the fact that this is already not true.
  - bayesianhorse 13y ago
    The article actually says we produce enough to feed the whole world. Massive death tolls from famines always come down to political stupidity. (Refusing food aid for example)
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > The article actually says we produce enough to feed the whole world. The issue is not whether we could feed the whole world, the issue is whether we do. If we don't, then the hypothesis that we could is small comfort to those who are starving. > Massive death tolls from famines always come down to political stupidity. Political stupidity is much harder to sustain with small populations, people who can vote with their feet.
      - bayesianhorse 13y ago
        Your basic view is that there can't be progress until noone on the whole world is hungry? And no amount of declining starvations over the past decades and centuries is worth anything at all?

by lutusp 13y ago

pdonis 13y ago

I'm not saying there's a solution to this problem -- there isn't It seems to me that you actually agree with the article's claim that the primary problem is social. You just don't agree with the article's claim that the problem can be solved; basically you don't think humans will be able to come to grips with the social changes that would be required to manage ourselves as a species responsibly. Is that a fair statement of your position?

lutusp 13y ago
> You just don't agree with the article's claim that the problem can be solved ... That's correct. The article relies on a common logical error, to wit: catastrophe hasn't overtaken us yet, and that stands as evidence that it cannot ever happen, i.e. the past predicts the future. It's one thing to accept that we can't solve population problems by pointing fingers at other people. But it's quite another to try to claim the problem doesn't exist at all. > basically you don't think humans will be able to come to grips with the social changes that would be required to manage ourselves as a species responsibly. It's a bit more complicated than that. In a mixed population of people who can grasp the nature of biological limits, and others who cannot, those who cannot eventually become the entire future population -- people congenitally indisposed to act intelligently. It's the inevitable outcome of natural selection. That's an easy problem to state, but impossible to do anything about without abandoning all civilized standards of behavior. If we do nothing, mass death becomes the problem. If we try to "solve" the problem, fascist and eugenic political measures become the problem. That's not any kind of choice. My point? This isn't a movie in which everything gets resolved in the third act. All our choices are bad ones, but the worst is to imagine the problem doesn't exist, as the author of the linked article tries to do.
- pdonis 13y ago
  In a mixed population of people who can grasp the nature of biological limits, and others who cannot, those who cannot eventually become the entire future population -- people congenitally indisposed to act intelligently. It's the inevitable outcome of natural selection. Yes, I see you make this argument on your page on evolution that you linked to. The only possible flaw that I can see is that you say it is impossible to do anything about without abandoning all civilized standards of behavior I'm not saying I have a solution that doesn't require that; but I'm not sure that our only option is giving up on trying to find one. I.e., instead of "impossible" in the quote above I would put "extremely difficult". But I admit that's purely a matter of opinion on my part.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > I'm not sure that our only option is giving up on trying to find one. No one is suggesting "giving up". In any case, it's not in the nature of science to give up on searching for solutions. But as things stand, there's no obvious solution. > instead of "impossible" in the quote above I would put "extremely difficult". My use of "impossible" was only with respect to measures that modify the behavior of individuals by force. That's impossible without abandoning civilized standards. I don't normally use the word "impossible" without good reason.
    - pdonis 13y ago
      My use of "impossible" was only with respect to measures that modify the behavior of individuals by force. That's impossible without abandoning civilized standards. Ok, yes, I agree with this.

bayesianhorse 13y ago

"Squeezing out more resources" isn't exactly what's happening. Agricultural technology is still progressing and we could probably feed any population growth beyond any current prediction of human population.

lutusp 13y ago
> Agricultural technology is still progressing and we could probably feed any population growth beyond any current prediction of human population. We already can't feed our present numbers, or haven't you been paying attention? http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20f... Quote: "The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that nearly 870 million people of the 7.1 billion people in the world, or one in eight, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2010-2012." I love hearing from environmental deniers, who say there's no limit to how many people we can feed -- people who ignore the fact that this is already not true.
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  The article actually says we produce enough to feed the whole world. Massive death tolls from famines always come down to political stupidity. (Refusing food aid for example)
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > The article actually says we produce enough to feed the whole world. The issue is not whether we could feed the whole world, the issue is whether we do. If we don't, then the hypothesis that we could is small comfort to those who are starving. > Massive death tolls from famines always come down to political stupidity. Political stupidity is much harder to sustain with small populations, people who can vote with their feet.
    - bayesianhorse 13y ago
      Your basic view is that there can't be progress until noone on the whole world is hungry? And no amount of declining starvations over the past decades and centuries is worth anything at all?