5 ms·

It's not just glib Malthusianism, it's neo-colonialism. It's paternalism and cultural superiority in green clothing. In short: it's bullshit. Oh, the poor lit

It's not just glib Malthusianism, it's neo-colonialism. It's paternalism and cultural superiority in green clothing. In short: it's bullshit. Oh, the poor little wogs, they lead such brutal lives, it's so sad that there are so many of them, if only there were fewer of them the world would be a better place. This is the sub-text that I see underlying these comments. It's "surplus population" crap yet again. These are people. People with dreams and ambitions. People with lives and families. People who are capable of amazing things if given a chance. They're not just grubby uneducated unwashed masses. These are folks who will build the world of the 21st century, who will help lift their own countries out of poverty. These are people who will build fusion reactors, and space ships, and nano-technology. People who will cure cancer, create art, and music, and literature. They don't need people who think that they are wastes of resources, all they need is a chance, and just enough help to start building their own futures.

dlsx 13y ago
This. Bill Gates is a massive investor in Monsanto, if you are naive you might think Bill Gates is a saint. He is really just a globalist with an extremely stubborn perspective of the future. Think of his contributions to IT: Proprietary software. Anyone that is a fan of Bill Gates cannot also be a fan of humanity unfortunately.
- knowaveragejoe 13y ago
  Thankfully, the situation is much more nuanced than you describe. If you are naive, you might think blanket statements are adequate descriptions of the situation.
- lowkeykiwi 13y ago
  "just a globalist" is a nicely dismissive way of describing someone.
- collyw 13y ago
  Bill does both good and bad. He gets a lot less hero worship than Jobs, despite a) bringing affordable / usable home computing to the majority (something I usually see Jobs credited with) b) using a large amount of his vast wealth for good causes (I never heard of Jobs doing anything).
  - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
    Jobs said he believed he could make a greater impact on the world by working at Apple than by using his time to organize charities. Given the title of his essay, Gates seems to agree. Several parties have said Jobs donated to causes, but would often do so anonymously. Known is that he donated to the Democratic Party and to cancer research. As for Gates: he is once again the richest person in the world. He could give away half of his wealth and he would still be in the top 6. Let’s not think too long about how he amassed his fortune, but I’ll give one example: under his leadership at Microsoft, he ’gave away’ tens of millions of Windows licenses to schools, so that kids would grow up being used to using Windows. It was presented as charity and Microsoft received tax benefits from doing so.
- vehementi 13y ago
  What does the body of your post have to do with the post you're replying to? Also: oh boy, Monsanto = evil, haha.
- nl 13y ago
  Bill Gates is a massive investor in Monsanto I take it you aren't a fan of GMO foods then? If so, then you are wrong. I'll leave it to former anti-GMO activist Mark to make that argument[1]. If you are talking about their business practices, then generally I agree with you. I can understand the point of view of people who think otherwise, though. I think people who agree with Monsanto's view are wrong, but that is a disagreement about methods, not outcomes. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/09/mark-lynas-truth-treachery-gm http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/09/mark-lyna...
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    Mark Lynas's quips against Herman Daly make me strongly question Lynas's credibility. GMOs present numerous issues. Proprietary interest in seed corn and yet another usurpation of privileges by corporate interests are a key issue. It's not intrinsic to GMO, but it's quite the extant problem. Genetic drift is another. Encouraging use of pesticides (through resistance). And ultimately, they don't address the root issue: humans have to live within ecological limits.
  - MrBuddyCasino 13y ago
    Thats an interesting link. I've felt the same about left-wing activists - paying lip service to tolerance, while being very close minded in reality. Doesn't mean I agree with nuclear power and GMOs, but I respect anyone who bases his arguments on scientific reasoning.
genwin 13y ago
The population can be reduced via attrition, allowing everyone currently alive to be deserving of a great life.
- OvidNaso 13y ago
  Which is exactly what happens when poverty and disease go down and education up.
  - collyw 13y ago
    I am fairly sure equality may factor in to your equation.
dharmach 13y ago
Agree. I will start believing in their sincerity once they are able to control their insatiable greed for consumption.
chestnut-tree 13y ago
Well said. We shouldn't forget that the "Western World" (Europe, North America, Australia, Japan) makes up a tiny percentage of the world's population, yet it's consumption of resources (or "ecological footprint") far outstrips the rest of the planet. On the question of population growth, families are getting smaller across the globe. If you're in the UK, I recommend this excellent programme presented by Hans Rosling. Don't Panic: The truth about population http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03h8r1j http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03h8r1j From the programme description: "With seven billion people already on our planet, we often look to the future with dread, but Rosling's message is surprisingly upbeat. Almost unnoticed, we have actually begun to conquer the problems of rapid population growth and extreme poverty." Rosling is, of course, a well-known statistician so he actually presents his conclusions based on real data.
lifeisstillgood 13y ago
I dance inside at your poetry of anger - please recieve this paltry karma point as it is meant - as a gift of a thousand.
robotomir 13y ago
As an antithesis to the affirmative chorus to you comment--human life is essentially and effectively worthless. An excessive number of human individuals inhabiting the planet leads to ecological catastrophe. That we successfully circumnavigated Maltus' predicted calamities for a couple of centuries does not mean we'll be able to do that forever.
- mistermann 13y ago
  > Anyone that is a fan of Bill Gates cannot also be a fan of humanity unfortunately. What utter nonsense. If you want people to take your opinions seriously, you should start having opinions that aren't obviously wrong.
  - 72deluxe 13y ago
    Did you reply to the wrong comment? I think the one you want is a few lines down :-)
    - mistermann 13y ago
      Haha, indeed I did. Not sure how I managed to quote it but then hit the wrong reply link. I'd suspect a bug but that seems quite unlikely.
Houshalter 13y ago
I think you are missing the point. Imagine you magically added 20 billion more people to the planet overnight. They would still all be individuals with dreams and ambitions, and so on. But that wouldn't stop the fact there is no way we could support them all. I don't think surplus population is the issue (in the present) because we do have enough resources for everyone. At least to give everyone a decent standard of living if not a first world one. And the way population growth is declining I don't think it will become a problem. Not the real problem anyways. However yours is a terrible argument against overpopulation fears. It is possible for there to be too many people for the world to support, regardless what you think of them as individuals.

dlsx 13y ago

This. Bill Gates is a massive investor in Monsanto, if you are naive you might think Bill Gates is a saint. He is really just a globalist with an extremely stubborn perspective of the future. Think of his contributions to IT: Proprietary software. Anyone that is a fan of Bill Gates cannot also be a fan of humanity unfortunately.

knowaveragejoe 13y ago
Thankfully, the situation is much more nuanced than you describe. If you are naive, you might think blanket statements are adequate descriptions of the situation.
lowkeykiwi 13y ago
"just a globalist" is a nicely dismissive way of describing someone.
collyw 13y ago
Bill does both good and bad. He gets a lot less hero worship than Jobs, despite a) bringing affordable / usable home computing to the majority (something I usually see Jobs credited with) b) using a large amount of his vast wealth for good causes (I never heard of Jobs doing anything).
- Samuel_Michon 13y ago
  Jobs said he believed he could make a greater impact on the world by working at Apple than by using his time to organize charities. Given the title of his essay, Gates seems to agree. Several parties have said Jobs donated to causes, but would often do so anonymously. Known is that he donated to the Democratic Party and to cancer research. As for Gates: he is once again the richest person in the world. He could give away half of his wealth and he would still be in the top 6. Let’s not think too long about how he amassed his fortune, but I’ll give one example: under his leadership at Microsoft, he ’gave away’ tens of millions of Windows licenses to schools, so that kids would grow up being used to using Windows. It was presented as charity and Microsoft received tax benefits from doing so.
vehementi 13y ago
What does the body of your post have to do with the post you're replying to? Also: oh boy, Monsanto = evil, haha.
nl 13y ago
Bill Gates is a massive investor in Monsanto I take it you aren't a fan of GMO foods then? If so, then you are wrong. I'll leave it to former anti-GMO activist Mark to make that argument[1]. If you are talking about their business practices, then generally I agree with you. I can understand the point of view of people who think otherwise, though. I think people who agree with Monsanto's view are wrong, but that is a disagreement about methods, not outcomes. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/09/mark-lynas-truth-treachery-gm http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/09/mark-lyna...
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  Mark Lynas's quips against Herman Daly make me strongly question Lynas's credibility. GMOs present numerous issues. Proprietary interest in seed corn and yet another usurpation of privileges by corporate interests are a key issue. It's not intrinsic to GMO, but it's quite the extant problem. Genetic drift is another. Encouraging use of pesticides (through resistance). And ultimately, they don't address the root issue: humans have to live within ecological limits.
- MrBuddyCasino 13y ago
  Thats an interesting link. I've felt the same about left-wing activists - paying lip service to tolerance, while being very close minded in reality. Doesn't mean I agree with nuclear power and GMOs, but I respect anyone who bases his arguments on scientific reasoning.

genwin 13y ago

The population can be reduced via attrition, allowing everyone currently alive to be deserving of a great life.

OvidNaso 13y ago
Which is exactly what happens when poverty and disease go down and education up.
- collyw 13y ago
  I am fairly sure equality may factor in to your equation.

dharmach 13y ago

Agree. I will start believing in their sincerity once they are able to control their insatiable greed for consumption.

chestnut-tree 13y ago

Well said. We shouldn't forget that the "Western World" (Europe, North America, Australia, Japan) makes up a tiny percentage of the world's population, yet it's consumption of resources (or "ecological footprint") far outstrips the rest of the planet. On the question of population growth, families are getting smaller across the globe. If you're in the UK, I recommend this excellent programme presented by Hans Rosling. Don't Panic: The truth about population http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03h8r1j http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03h8r1j From the programme description: "With seven billion people already on our planet, we often look to the future with dread, but Rosling's message is surprisingly upbeat. Almost unnoticed, we have actually begun to conquer the problems of rapid population growth and extreme poverty." Rosling is, of course, a well-known statistician so he actually presents his conclusions based on real data.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

I dance inside at your poetry of anger - please recieve this paltry karma point as it is meant - as a gift of a thousand.

robotomir 13y ago

As an antithesis to the affirmative chorus to you comment--human life is essentially and effectively worthless. An excessive number of human individuals inhabiting the planet leads to ecological catastrophe. That we successfully circumnavigated Maltus' predicted calamities for a couple of centuries does not mean we'll be able to do that forever.

mistermann 13y ago
> Anyone that is a fan of Bill Gates cannot also be a fan of humanity unfortunately. What utter nonsense. If you want people to take your opinions seriously, you should start having opinions that aren't obviously wrong.
- 72deluxe 13y ago
  Did you reply to the wrong comment? I think the one you want is a few lines down :-)
  - mistermann 13y ago
    Haha, indeed I did. Not sure how I managed to quote it but then hit the wrong reply link. I'd suspect a bug but that seems quite unlikely.

Houshalter 13y ago

I think you are missing the point. Imagine you magically added 20 billion more people to the planet overnight. They would still all be individuals with dreams and ambitions, and so on. But that wouldn't stop the fact there is no way we could support them all. I don't think surplus population is the issue (in the present) because we do have enough resources for everyone. At least to give everyone a decent standard of living if not a first world one. And the way population growth is declining I don't think it will become a problem. Not the real problem anyways. However yours is a terrible argument against overpopulation fears. It is possible for there to be too many people for the world to support, regardless what you think of them as individuals.