Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

Count, please stop embarrassing yourself.

In summary:

The world has already overpopulated. Hence the extinctions, loss of arable land, climate change and so forth.

And yes, the world overpopulated with profligate humans. If humans did not behave like humans, then we would have overpopulated. As things stand, when humans earn a decent wage, they consume more than when in poverty. The world is overpopulated with such humans.

Inequality is part of the problem, but that can never be solved while rogue nations like Panama provide a way for the corrupt to hide their ill-gotten gains, reducing the resources available for nations to improve energy efficiencies.

That the growth rate has slowed does not mean the problem is gone - global populations are still growing. Note that a slower rate today applies to a the largest raw numbers of humans in history. So, 1% of 8 billion is the same catastrophic growth in numbers as 2% of 4 billion.

If any other large and resource-hungry species had proliferated as humans have done, we would deem them to have overpopulated, to be unsustainable.

I agree. Please note I did nor say the problem is going away.

[Sculptor1]

Has our local aristocrat admitted how many children he has personally spawned?

[Sy Borg]

Yes, you would expect a slowdown once overpopulation has occurred.

Further, population growth is not declining, only the growth percentage, since 1% of 8 billion equals the same raw numbers as 2% of 4 billion. In this situation, percentages alone are not enough - it's a matter of percentages against the total. Alas, someone on this thread is not very good with numbers and just Googles them up to prove points without having the adequate analytical tools to properly contextualise them.

I certainly don't claim to be good with interpreting statistics so all of my ideas in this department are humbly tentative. However I will venture that I thought Count Lucanor's interpretation was not a comment on the status quo ,like the graphs he posted described pretty nearly the status quo, but was meant to be a tentatively predictive hypothesis, if extrapolation is to be credited at all, or credited in connection with population numbers.

He's talking about closing the gate after the horse has bolted. His only valid argument in al this time was something that everyone, including me, acknowledged and agreed with right from the start - humanity's excessive consumption. Also, "nearly the status quo" percentage-wise only appears that way on a chart. As Sculptor noted, we are still birthing over a hundreds of millions of new humans each year so low percentages only means a slight slowing of a situation of unprecedented extremity.

Sorry about being slow to reply. The amusing irony of fighting is that those in battle appear to be locked in a tight embrace, leaving everyone else on the outside :)

[Belindi]

I certainly don't claim to be good with interpreting statistics so all of my ideas in this department are humbly tentative. However I will venture that I thought Count Lucanor's interpretation was not a comment on the status quo ,like the graphs he posted described pretty nearly the status quo, but was meant to be a tentatively predictive hypothesis, if extrapolation is to be credited at all, or credited in connection with population numbers.

He's talking about closing the gate after the horse has bolted. His only valid argument in al this time was something that everyone, including me, acknowledged and agreed with right from the start - humanity's excessive consumption. Also, "nearly the status quo" percentage-wise only appears that way on a chart. As Sculptor noted, we are still birthing over a hundreds of millions of new humans each year so low percentages only means a slight slowing of a situation of unprecedented extremity.

Sorry about being slow to reply. The amusing irony of fighting is that those in battle appear to be locked in a tight embrace, leaving everyone else on the outside

From what you say above I understand

"As Sculptor noted, we are still birthing over a hundreds of millions of new humans each year so low percentages only means a slight slowing of a situation of unprecedented extremity. "

scale of the problem so much reduces the probability of the extrapolation's being correct, that we should dismiss the extrapolation.

[Count Lucanor]

The world has already overpopulated.

Nope. That's only a belief of yours, which has been proven wrong. You cannot even identify since when the world is supposedly overpopulated, according to your own parameters. It could be 10 thousand years ago, 50 or last year. That's because for you the mere existence of the human species is a problem, but instead of saying it like that, you disguise it under an apparent technical term, 'overpopulation', which does not apply to reality, doesn't state a fact, but a myth.

Hence the extinctions, loss of arable land, climate change and so forth.

Many things explain extinctions and climate change, not mere human reproduction, as I said repeatedly: the type and extension of exploitation of resources, which are not a direct factor of population growth. That is pretty obvious, only Neo Malthusians are blind to that.

Loss of arable land? Are you now arguing against yourself?

[Jklint]

I think one main reason for all of this simultaneous deterioration of the biosphere in collusion with our current numbers, but not solely because of it, is due to the severe malfunctioning of an economic system anchored in the steadfast goal of constant growth. Epic consumerism and its encouragement by corporations is the principle means to accomplish that. Banks as well are complicit in their constant offering of credit cards to people who have problems paying the ones they already have. Hardly anything gets repaired anymore, even if the problem is slight, but needs to be replaced...and so much more. Just one example where even hype goes beyond its usual definition in that Apple is now a two trillion dollar company...and on it goes. What's more symbolic of an afflicted system against which no logic prevails forcing the entire planet into a downward spiral.

Corporations, with powers exceeding that of most governments, will never allow this to change. What changes will be the planet itself becoming increasing difficult to live in eventually resulting in massive decreases in population. To late to care then when most of the world's greenery will have changed to dessert.

[Count Lucanor]

I think one main reason for all of this simultaneous deterioration of the biosphere in collusion with our current numbers, but not solely because of it, is due to the severe malfunctioning of an economic system anchored in the steadfast goal of constant growth.

Of course, unbridled capitalism driven by the eternal pursuit of more profits, is the main culprit of environmental damage. That's what's behind the unsustainable practices and negative externalities in the whole chain of extraction, production, distribution, consumption and waste of goods and services. It is not, as Neo Malthusians and sociobiologists ridiculously claim, an issue of correlation with population growth.

[Sy Borg]

Hello? It's not just humans on the planet. There are many other types of animals. Well, there used to be.

Seeing overpopulation in terms of human v human makes the logical error of anthropocentrism. It's a very common issue in philosophy, and society in general. It is this very self-focus, this ruthless whitewashing of other species as though they did not matter, that is destroying ecosystems everywhere.

The human species has overpopulated enormously, as can be seen by the concurrent rapid loss of other large species. A few minutes looking at the species distribution maps over the last century makes the fact of human overpopulation clear.

The politically correct, of course, are tying to wipe the word "overpopulation" from the lexicon to support their blind anthropocentrism. So let's avoid their most hated word. Humans and their structures have populated to such an extent that extinction rates have increased to 1000x faster than the background rate, with ecosystem destruction and desertification rapidly increasing.

So we can call it a catastrophically destructive level of population instead.

People can whine about capitalism or throw around pretentious insults like "neo-Maltusian", but even a cursory view of history will make clear that human behaviour has not changed for thousands of years. Monarchies, dictatorships, capitalists, socialists or feudalists - they all yield the same result because those at the top will always increase their power over time. While human nature has remained the same, human numbers and capabilities have changed.

Other species are paying the price for this. We now count almost all other large species in their thousands, while human numbers still increase by over a hundred million annually. One wonders how extreme the imbalance needs to be before the word "overpopulation" is allowed back into the vernacular.

Total current populations in the wild:

Lions 20,000
Tigers 4,000
Hippos 130,000
Giraffes 70,000
Rhinos 30,000
Wombats 250 (extinct in the wild)
Koalas 50,000
Platypuses 100,000
Chimps 200,000
Bonobos 20,000
Orangutans 100,000


Humans 7,800,000,000

Does anyone apart from Count notice the imbalance?

[Sy Borg]

Corporations, with powers exceeding that of most governments, will never allow this to change. What changes will be the planet itself becoming increasing difficult to live in eventually resulting in massive decreases in population. Too late to care then when most of the world's greenery will have changed to dessert.

I agree. They also love high levels of immigration to boost their customer bases.

Still, how do corporations differ from institutions of the past, other than in capability? Attitudinally, they are exactly the same as every other ruthless "leaders" of the past. Look at Trump - a classic example of a ruthless modern CEO who doesn't take no for an answer - and his behaviour is remarkably similar to that of dictators and autocrats of the past and present.

The same things are happening as always, albeit on a larger scale because human populations rose exponentially over the last century and have developed more destructive technology.

[Sy Borg]

While pointing fingers at the culprits, we cannot just blame the west. Panama is just as guilty, and its representative here is guilty of hypocrisy.

https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2018/0 ... struction/

New study raises red flags on tax haven role in environmental destruction

Tax havens – and the financial secrecy they provide – may bolster industries tied to Amazon deforestation and the unsustainable management of natural resources, a new study has found.

“We need to start seeing the environmental costs of tax havens” and “how financial actors and financial flows are shaping the planet in very profound ways,” said Victor Galaz, a researcher at Stockholm University’s Resilience Centre and the leading author of the report that looked at the use of tax havens by agribusiness and fishing companies.

The study, which started after the unveiling of the Panama Papers investigation in April 2016 and was published Monday in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution, examined jurisdictions where agribusiness conglomerates operating in the Amazon and fishing vessels involved in illegal activities are registered.

An analysis of Brazilian central bank data from 2000 to 2011 revealed that at least nine of the world’s largest producers of soy and beef, two industries considered to be main drivers of deforestation, use offshore subsidiaries to finance their operations in the Amazon forest, which Galaz called “a sleeping giant” in the climate change system. Scientists agree that deforestation is one of the main causes of global warming as the carbon dioxide that is typically absorbed by trees gets released in the atmosphere when they are cut or burnt.

The Stockholm University researchers found that, over the decade, about 70 percent of foreign capital – or about $18.4 billion – reached the operating companies in Brazil after being routed through subsidiaries in low or zero tax rate jurisdictions

Trouble is, when you have overpopulated, everything you do causes problems. Including being a tax haven like Panama or the Cook Islands.

[Jklint]

Of course, unbridled capitalism driven by the eternal pursuit of more profits, is the main culprit of environmental damage. That's what's behind the unsustainable practices and negative externalities in the whole chain of extraction, production, distribution, consumption and waste of goods and services.

As mentioned in a prior post, if we were better in managing ourselves it would be hard to know in advance at what point over-population occurs. In theory it's possible there could be room for more - though definitely not desirable - without causing further extinctions and environmental degradation. The real and hardly debatable problem is we've subordinated the life affirming infrastructures of the planet to the defective ones we created. We behave as if the former were nothing more than acceptable collateral damage in servicing the thoroughly deficient ones we devised. There's a truly perverse ordering of logic here from which we seemingly can't escape being handi-capped by the powers that be. It reminds me of an extended definition Erich Fromm gave to the word necrophilia as a worship of technique over the living and organic.

It is not, as Neo Malthusians and sociobiologists ridiculously claim, an issue of correlation with population growth.

I don't trust Malthusians or the neo variety. They're often as right as Trump assumes himself to be every time he tells a lie. They can be disregarded; what counts is the underlying reality of what's happening and in what manner it's mal-functioning. The mystery of that has long ceased to be a mystery except for those groups whose self-interest lies in disputing every fact.

[Count Lucanor]

I don't trust Malthusians or the neo variety. They're often as right as Trump assumes himself to be every time he tells a lie. They can be disregarded; what counts is the underlying reality of what's happening and in what manner it's mal-functioning. The mystery of that has long ceased to be a mystery except for those groups whose self-interest lies in disputing every fact.

Exactly my point all the time:

You're creating a false dilemma: either accept that there is overpopulation and it's the key factor in environmental damage or face the apocalyptic end of all life. The facts are that there's no overpopulation and it is not the key factor in environmental damage. If we're to face an apocalyptic end it will not be because of the pressure of population, but the pressure of unsustainable destructive capitalism, which ironically is led by the countries where the population control narrative is strongly advocated.

Rejecting the overpopulation myth does not imply that we stop seeking a sustainable future or rejecting the fact that human factors are behind the biggest negative impact on the environmental. The issue is to identify which type of human factor is actually responsible and which are the actual impacts. No one is saying keep the deforestation of the Amazon to clear land for cattle and agriculture, what's been said is that the Amazon's deforestation has to do with capitalist pressures, not with demographic ones.

But don't push it too hard, or you'll receive this answer I received from a conspicuous participant of this debate:

...Are you planning a revolution? ...Good luck pitting yourself against drones and tanks

...What do you suggest? Knocking down billionaires' estates and erecting huge apartment towers in their stead to house the impoverished and dispossessed?

The causes of environmental damage are pretty obvious, but some will pretend to distract us from seeing them, pointing instead at the supposed 'overbreeding' of some humans and calling for the need for population control measures in some parts of the world, otherwise apocalypses. In the end, capitalism knows no frontiers, it will exploit every millimeter of natural resources in every corner of the Earth until there's no more. From north to south, from east to west, it will submit to its creed of eternal growth of profits. It will know no exception, not even in the Western countries of North, Central and South America (you will find Trump is not the only ignorant pretending to know, in front of everyone, what he really doesn't know, not even the basics )

[Jklint]

The causes of environmental damage are pretty obvious, but some will pretend to distract us from seeing them, pointing instead at the supposed 'overbreeding' of some humans and calling for the need for population control measures in some parts of the world, otherwise apocalypses. In the end, capitalism knows no frontiers, it will exploit every millimeter of natural resources in every corner of the Earth until there's no more. From north to south, from east to west, it will submit to its creed of eternal growth of profits. It will know no exception, not even in the Western countries of North, Central and South America (you will find Trump is not the only ignorant pretending to know, in front of everyone, what he really doesn't know, not even the basics )

Unfortunately that sums it up in a paragraph!

But not to worry, God will save us in the end. He wouldn't let what he created in his image perish, would he? Or just maybe he's got a few monkeys in his pocket as a spare ordered to repopulate the world - by report, they're at least as good at it as we are - and continue the journey into a future left vacant by humans. It will be a new makeover for god as well who will receive a new more contemporary image...which reminds me of a movie I once saw.

[Belindi]

I think one main reason for all of this simultaneous deterioration of the biosphere in collusion with our current numbers, but not solely because of it, is due to the severe malfunctioning of an economic system anchored in the steadfast goal of constant growth.

Of course, unbridled capitalism driven by the eternal pursuit of more profits, is the main culprit of environmental damage. That's what's behind the unsustainable practices and negative externalities in the whole chain of extraction, production, distribution, consumption and waste of goods and services. It is not, as Neo Malthusians and sociobiologists ridiculously claim, an issue of correlation with population growth.

I don't dislike neo Malthusians and sociobiologists as much as the Count seems to do. However I so agree with him him and jklint. Economic growth has been viewed as good for a long time. I wonder if a paradigm change is possible before the Apocalypse.

[Sy Borg]

The causes of environmental damage are pretty obvious, but some will pretend to distract us from seeing them, pointing instead at the supposed 'overbreeding' of some humans and calling for the need for population control measures in some parts of the world, otherwise apocalypses. In the end, capitalism knows no frontiers, it will exploit every millimeter of natural resources in every corner of the Earth until there's no more. From north to south, from east to west, it will submit to its creed of eternal growth of profits. It will know no exception, not even in the Western countries of North, Central and South America (you will find Trump is not the only ignorant pretending to know, in front of everyone, what he really doesn't know, not even the basics :roll: )

Unfortunately that sums it up in a paragraph!

But not to worry, God will save us in the end. He wouldn't let what he created in his image perish, would he? Or just maybe he's got a few monkeys in his pocket as a spare ordered to repopulate the world - by report, they're at least as good at it as we are - and continue the journey into a future left vacant by humans. It will be a new makeover for god as well who will receive a new more contemporary image...which reminds me of a movie I once saw. :twisted:

You two look like you're having fun soaping each other up in your pink bubble bath of righteous indignation.

The question was whether overpopulation exists. It does.

The question was not whether humans over-consume (which we do, but that is not the topic).

Count has spent the entire thread smearing me as a neo-Malthusian for the "crime" of accepting human overpopulation, and he speaks ominously of "population control measures".

Okay. By Count's logic, since he is against all "population control measures", he is against the education of women.

If I am a Malthusian then Count is a misogynist. You can't have it both ways.