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

[Sy Borg]

It's amusing to see people falling for Count's wedge, as thought admitting that we have overpopulated is somehow to deny waste, corruption, greed and profligacy. Politics over reality.

In truth, overpopulation is a simple matter of biology. Different species consume different amounts of resources.

Humans, on average, consume huge amounts. The consumption is not at all equitable but, on average, that is what humans do - they divide into inequitable groups that consume very different amounts. This has been the case in every society in history.

Eight billion orangutans or dogs would cause considerable disruption in some areas, but eight billion H. sapiens is clearly to be unsustainable. If there were just one billion of us worldwide, most of our current problems would be gone. We would be sustainable, as long as we kept population in check. Then again, if there were just one billion of us, we would be less advanced than we are today. More numbers means more geniuses, which means more scientific breakthroughs.

More numbers then naturally results in more inequality as the best and brightest are paid well to help those at the top to entrench their power. If push comes to shove, any popular uprising today can be easily quelled with drones and automated weapons (invented by the best and brightest).

I see no use complaining about any of it, other than to vent. Yes, there's too many humans, who consume too much and are inequitable. When thiings go wrong, naive people will claim that [X people] are the cause of all problems, that everything would be alright if we just dealt with [X people].

The fact is that human animals behave - unsurprisingly - like human animals. That being the case, human populations are unsustainable.

[Sy Borg]

So would you all say that this speaker, whom I largely agree with*, is a neo-Malthusian?

* thought she failed to properly address the plight of other species.

[Count Lucanor]

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.

Surely, Malthusians, Social Darwinists and their new breed might be peddling anti-scientific views out of good faith. People who worked hard to implement population control polices such as forced sterilization might have thought they were doing someone a favor, in the words of the Huxley family: ‘a duty towards humanity’. Let's be reminded that these ideologies surfaced first as "scientific views" and people who promoted eugenics were regarded as respectable members of society. So it's not really an issue of "liking or disliking" them, but to place their ideologies in historical context as non-scientific, politically-biased views.

This came out recently, and although I don't share completely his views, it is a good summary of what the discussion is all about:
Part 1
Waves of Malthusians

Part 2
Malthus and environmental predictions of doom

[Count Lucanor]

So would you all say that this speaker, whom I largely agree with*, is a neo-Malthusian?

Well, at last we get the word from a peddler of the overpopulation myth!! At last someone with the courage to tell us just what it means for their apocalyptic cult, to be overpopulated: the magic number is 2 billion, which goes along the lines of Attenborough and company. Let that sink in: we're overpopulated since 1927 and we need to wipe out around 5 to 8 billion people from the face of the Earth in the next decades, or apocalyptic doom.

[Sy Borg]

Count is engaging in stock standard political posturing and blatant misrepresentation, which is functionally an admission of defeat. Only bile remains.

The speaker made the standard observation that more women need to be educated so as to to control overpopulation. Educating women does not equate to "wiping out" billions of people.

[Sy Borg]

Social Darwinists ... forced sterilization ... eugenics ... doom ...

An example of epithets, hot-button issues, straw men, lies and politicisation used in lieu of philosophy.

This is an admission of defeat in debate - lashing out wildly, throwing mud in the hope that some of it will stick. There's no substance, logic or even fair-mindedness.

[Count Lucanor]

Now that we have a number and a measurable definition of 'overpopulation', let's keep debunking the arguments, one by one:

All the evidence is there, you know, the material you ignored.

- rate of human population growth in the 20th century (debunked)
- rapidly increasing extinction rates
- rapid desertification of previously bountiful areas
- susceptibility to pandemics due to overcrowding
- extreme traffic jams almost everywhere in the world
- insufficient housing for the millions, resulting in homelessness
- almost 30 million refugees - a large nation's worth.

We're done with the first one, let's do the next one: extinction rates.

The main argument is that there's a correlation between extinction rates and population growth in the last centuries. As already explained, this is argument is a failure, because correlation is no causation, and there can be many factors that explain both population growth and growing extinctions, without one being a direct function of the other. As usual, the type and level of human exploitation of resources is the culprit, and this is directly related to the nature of economical activities, to how the whole chain that goes from extraction to waste, is organized.

That would suffice to dismiss the argument, however, thanks to the useful video we have been provided above as reference, we can now crush the last remaining bits of this extinction rates narrative. Bear in mind that we are being told there wasn't overpopulation yet until the late twenties of the 20th century and before population had not reached 2 billion. But as it turns out, human-caused extinctions have been going on since well before the 20th century, so far as thousands of years ago (KYA):





As evidence shows then, since the 1800s (when according to the overpopulation myth peddlers, the world was not yet overpopulated, but actually holding the optimal population below 2 billion) there have been accelerated extinctions caused by humans. This shatters the argument that there's a direct link between accelerated population growth and accelerated extinction rates. Yes, it is human causing it, but no, it is not by simply breeding. Such naive thinking that ignores all the human factors is the base of the Neo Malthusian myth.

Another myth to the trash bin!!

[Sy Borg]

Amazing that one can be accused of being a "neo-Malthusian" for simply mentioning human overpopulation and suggesting that more education for women and girls would help. Count, you did not say what you have against educating women and girls, and why that means "wiping out" billions of people. Do you believe, perhaps, that every sperm is sacred?

The charts you posted show human populations and extinctions rising together in lockstep. What do you think your charts show? What do you think is causing the higher extinction rate, if not humans? Maybe God or aliens? Based on your "logic" more humans would lower extinction rates.

So here is a chart which, like yours, showing the intimate link between human population and extinctions of other species.

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/pro ... tGraph.jpg


As noted countless times here, inequality, waste, climate change and new technology have exacerbated the problem of overpopulation, but to use those issues to ignore human numbers is illogical (or dishonest).

At no stage have you managed to raised a single solid point to challenge my view - that human overpopulation and over-consumption are unsustainable. There has been no challenge whatsoever, just the boring drone of repetition and unpacking your false claims about both population, and smears.

If you (or someone else) cannot provide a strong response to this - not your usual ad hom rubbish - I'm locking the thread for good. I'm sick of wasting my time with endless repetition just because you seeming lack the intellect to understand that two things can cause problems at once (overpopulation and over-consumption) and that one does not negate the other.

[Jklint]

The speaker made the standard observation that more women need to be educated so as to to control overpopulation. Educating women does not equate to "wiping out" billions of people.

There is nothing in the video I object to. She's correct in saying that the education of women is paramount in controlling population but that was long known and often mentioned prior to her Ted Talk. Even without the population motive the necessity to educate the human brain isn't diminished just because it's female. Who knows how many more of exceptional talent and genius there could have been if the right to education had referenced a single mind without any sexist division...the ONE called human.

In the video Alexandra Paul only mentioned over-population as if that's the problem in and of itself...a very simplified view. Any reference to population depends first and foremost on our ability to sustain it - without exterminating our less endowed compatriots - based on infrastructure together with its supporting technologies and not have it corrupted by corporations or expedited by politicians, who can only keep growing within the framework of a cancer economy.

The main causes of extinctions, commonly but erroneously bound to the consequences of a surplus population, should have been granted a few moments of inspection as to whether it could be caused by too many people piled into a failed system serving only itself, meaning the few it serves, making it impossible for other species to survive and in turn making our survival dubious. We're not the only one living on the planet over-populated or not!

Population figures are not dependent on some predefined range but a function of the physical and social substructures which exist to support it with the least fallout on the biosphere. If these fail, internally or externally, the numbers won't matter. A robust constitution will automatically control the number of "cells" within it...which is precisely what we don't have. Instead we have a sick system becoming terminal infecting the ground we walk on.

Within the near future we may look on covid as the good-old-days.

[Count Lucanor]

The charts you posted show human populations and extinctions rising together in lockstep. What do you think your charts show? What do you think is causing the higher extinction rate, if not humans? Maybe God or aliens? Based on your "logic" more humans would lower extinction rates.

Amazing that some people will be blinded by their bias and not even read what is in front of them! Didn't I just say this?:

This shatters the argument that there's a direct link between accelerated population growth and accelerated extinction rates. Yes, it is human causing it, but no, it is not by simply breeding.

Or perhaps you just have to pretend that you didn't read it, so that you can keep bringing your straw man.

So here is a chart which, like yours, showing the intimate link between human population and extinctions of other species.

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/pro ... tGraph.jpg

Again, didn't we already talk about that graph, didn't I say already and once again in the last post that this is an spurious correlation for which you have no evidence of causation? No, it doesn't show any intimate link, it just shows a correlation!! Read, read, read... you'll learn something.

If you (or someone else) cannot provide a strong response to this - not your usual ad hom rubbish - I'm locking the thread for good. I'm sick of wasting my time with endless repetition just because you seeming lack the intellect to understand that two things can cause problems at once (overpopulation and over-consumption) and that one does not negate the other.

Considering the last attempt, the embarrassment you're facing and what's still ahead (because you know that I'm going to put my teeth on those remaining 5 points of your list), I had already figured out that was coming. It will be the last nail in the overpopulation narrative and ironically, we will all have learned something about the human condition.

[Sy Borg]

Count, your blinkered blustering is a waste of bandwidth.

The speaker made the standard observation that more women need to be educated so as to to control overpopulation. Educating women does not equate to "wiping out" billions of people.

There is nothing in the video I object to. She's correct in saying that the education of women is paramount in controlling population but that was long known and often mentioned prior to her Ted Talk. Even without the population motive the necessity to educate the human brain isn't diminished just because it's female. Who knows how many more of exceptional talent and genius there could have been if the right to education had referenced a single mind without any sexist division...the ONE called human.

In the video Alexandra Paul only mentioned over-population as if that's the problem in and of itself...a very simplified view. Any reference to population depends first and foremost on our ability to sustain it - without exterminating our less endowed compatriots - based on infrastructure together with its supporting technologies and not have it corrupted by corporations or expedited by politicians, who can only keep growing within the framework of a cancer economy.

The main causes of extinctions, commonly but erroneously bound to the consequences of a surplus population, should have been granted a few moments of inspection as to whether it could be caused by too many people piled into a failed system serving only itself, meaning the few it serves, making it impossible for other species to survive and in turn making our survival dubious. We're not the only one living on the planet over-populated or not!

Population figures are not dependent on some predefined range but a function of the physical and social substructures which exist to support it with the least fallout on the biosphere. If these fail, internally or externally, the numbers won't matter. A robust constitution will automatically control the number of "cells" within it...which is precisely what we don't have. Instead we have a sick system becoming terminal infecting the ground we walk on.

Within the near future we may look on covid as the good-old-days.

I'm comfortable with all of that.

Since "overpopulation" is a biological concept, I like to think of the issue as a biologist might. Ask most biologists if humans have overpopulated and they will say, "Obviously".

So what happens now that we are overpopulated?

Just the usual problems that occur when a species overpopulates - growing tensions that lead to conflict; disease, starvation, fouled water, and so forth.

[Jklint]

Since "overpopulation" is a biological concept, I like to think of the issue as a biologist might. Ask most biologists if humans have overpopulated and they will say, "Obviously".

It's as much a logistical concept as a biological one based on the cold-hearted discipline of efficiency not unlike supplying troops on the front lines.

Successful societies, which includes everything which makes it tick including conformity to that which supports it, is more due to planning than biology which civilizations are meant to protect for their own well-being. Obviously that's not happening!

So what happens now that we are overpopulated?

Just the usual problems that occur when a species overpopulates - growing tensions that lead to conflict; disease, starvation, fouled water, and so forth.

Yes, to all of that! But again it begs the question; is that because we're 8 billion or is it chiefly due to the gross mismanagement of the planet which causes the 8 billion to be a problem?

We don't know what the real carrying capacity would be if humans didn't behave like gangsters without hiatus from day one. The combination of increasing numbers with resource and environmental destruction will eventually force a solution, if still possible, but never a return of what was already destroyed.

I asked the question before. Just because we're 8 billion does that necessitate cutting down the Amazon or is that an assumed economic expediency by some scumbag politicians who ought to be executed Roman style.

As long as we have human trash in charge of the planet and idiot clones willing to follow we'll always be over-populated no matter what the number.

[Sculptor1]

Since "overpopulation" is a biological concept, I like to think of the issue as a biologist might. Ask most biologists if humans have overpopulated and they will say, "Obviously".

It's as much a logistical concept as a biological one based on the cold-hearted discipline of efficiency not unlike supplying troops on the front lines.

Successful societies, which includes everything which makes it tick including conformity to that which supports it, is more due to planning than biology which civilizations are meant to protect for their own well-being. Obviously that's not happening!

So what happens now that we are overpopulated?

Just the usual problems that occur when a species overpopulates - growing tensions that lead to conflict; disease, starvation, fouled water, and so forth.

Yes, to all of that! But again it begs the question; is that because we're 8 billion or is it chiefly due to the gross mismanagement of the planet which causes the 8 billion to be a problem?

We don't know what the real carrying capacity would be if humans didn't behave like gangsters without hiatus from day one. The combination of increasing numbers with resource and environmental destruction will eventually force a solution, if still possible, but never a return of what was already destroyed.

I asked the question before. Just because we're 8 billion does that necessitate cutting down the Amazon or is that an assumed economic expediency by some scumbag politicians who ought to be executed Roman style.

As long as we have human trash in charge of the planet and idiot clones willing to follow we'll always be over-populated no matter what the number.

No one is "managing" the planet. No "one" is ever likley to be in a position to mahage the planet. IF there was one entity capable of managing the planet this would have to be the most gross form of dictatorship imaginable.
As a kid and growing internationalist I always used to think that a world government was the solution to conflict between nation, races, religions ad inf..
However with old age I have come to realise just how bad humans are at doing this. You have only to peruse the travesty that is the EU, and how poorly it refelcted the needs of its citizens and just how badly people reacted to their perceived loss of sovereignty and the vanity of the national character.

You might be correct that we shall always have this problem, but at least when the **** hits the fan people like me and others who think this is a real problem that needs discussion can act like Cassandra and say I told you so.
Sadly there will always be the likes of Cnt Lucanor who has spawned his tribe of little Catholic children who are eating all the food and sh1tting in the rivers until all the wildlife is dead and extinct. And they won't stop until they are all poisoned by their polluted river water or so overcrowed that no one can move.

[Pattern-chaser]

Eight billion orangutans or dogs would cause considerable disruption in some areas, but eight billion H. sapiens is clearly to be unsustainable. If there were just one billion of us worldwide, most of our current problems would be gone.

I think we need to knock another zero off, at least. Think about it. Let's assume that over 7 billion humans have been magicked away, in some marvellous morally-acceptable way, and there are only one billion of us left. What's the first thing that billion will do? They will tell themselves that they can now consume even more than we ever did before, because there are so few of us left.

The result would be one billion consuming ten (or more) times as much as they used to, resulting in even greater consumption than 8 billion do now. Environmental collapse would surely follow very quickly. I think 50 to 100 million would be more than enough. It's plenty to ensure our species' survival, and it ensures an adequate gene pool, as long as the survivors are randomly taken from across the world.

Oh, and in a sort of karmic resolution, perhaps we could arrange that none of the survivors would have assets exceeding $20 million? ⚰

[Count Lucanor]

Since my detailed and well supported arguments against the extinction rates 'evidence' will get no counterargument (supposedly mine are a waste of bandwith), we can mark this one too as officially debunked.

All the evidence is there, you know, the material you ignored.

- rate of human population growth in the 20th century (debunked)
- rapidly increasing extinction rates (debunked)
- rapid desertification of previously bountiful areas
- susceptibility to pandemics due to overcrowding
- extreme traffic jams almost everywhere in the world
- insufficient housing for the millions, resulting in homelessness
- almost 30 million refugees - a large nation's worth.

Let's move on with rapid desertification. This one should be easy, too.