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

[Sculptor1]

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,

Complete nonsense. Humans consumed far less when there was 1 billion in 1800AD

.... 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? ⚰

Neverthless I think a million would be my choice. With current tech we could all live with space and luxury whilst being able to witness the re-wilding of our cultural landscapes.

[Sculptor1]

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.

Has anyone told you how much you exist in your own little world?

[Sculptor1]

https://news.mongabay.com/2020/06/less- ... xtinction/

[Sy Borg]

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? 🤑🤮⚰

That brings us to the Thanos argument. If Thanos arrived on Earth and made half of the human population disappear, that would just return the world to bring us back to 1973 levels (while Cnt Lucanor laughably brags his "proof" that human populations have never risen exponentially). Further, the remaining 3.9 billion would have a far more damaged world than their 1973 peers.

[Sy Borg]

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!

I don't see the logistics as important.

After all, if there are too many jellyfish destroying marine ecosystems (which there are), we don't take into account their distribution of consumption. We just figure that each jellyfish on average uses X resources. Similarly, each human on average uses Y resources. In a different world where humans did not behave like humans (ie. if humans en masse displayed temperance and empathy for other animals), fair enough, but my point is that humans, being as they are, have overpopulated.

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.

Re: "As long as we have human trash in charge of the planet and idiot clones willing to follow ..." has there been a time or place in history free of "human trash and idiot clones"? That seems to be standard. Once I believed that we would do better but the anti-environment Xi-Trump-Putin triumvirate and their idiot supporters have put paid to any dreams I may have held for the world.

Now it's just a matter of seeing how the destruction of most societies and ecosystems plays out. It was always going to happen, just that I would have preferred that humans has sufficient nous to engineer a "soft landing" for future generations. Now a hard landing is guaranteed as our numbers grow and we consume ever more.

[Sy Borg]

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.



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

Has anyone told you how much you exist in your own little world?

We have tried.

His "detailed" arguments would work better if he had the slightest clue how to read charts or interpret statistics rather than spraying self-defeating numbers around as though it helped his case, and then calling it "detailed evidence".

[Count Lucanor]

The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.
( Thomas Malthus. An Essay on the Principle of Population).


Let's look at the population scenarios dreamed by the advocates of the overpopulation myth:

As we've been told, the optimal world population is 2 billion, 5.5 billion below today's 7.5 billion. To reach that number, we could try the unrealistic scenario in which, starting from now, no new human in the whole planet was born. Since the average number of deaths currently projected for the next decades is around 90 million per year:

- It would take 60 years of no human being born to decrease the population down to 2 billion.

That will never happen. But if an ambitious population control policy was tried at global level in which, starting from now, current birth rates dropped to a half to 1.25, that is, instead of 140 million people per year, only 70 million per year were born,

- It would take 275 years of rapid population decline to reach the desired 2 billion.

What if birth rates dropped to a quarter of today's (0.625) and instead of 140 million people per year, only 35 million per year were born?

- It would take 100 years, a whole century, to reach the supposedly optimal population of 2 billion.

Now, let's consider that China's one child policy, considered a drastic measure by many, produced a birth rate of 1.5. Current global birth rate is around 2.5, so if such a scenario was tried at global scale starting from now, around 84 million per year would be born, therefore:

- It would take 916 years, almost a whole millennium, to reach the optimal population of 2 billion dreamed by the advocates of the overpopulation myth.

What this means is clear: the current peddlers of the overpopulation myth are the new prophets of doom, the new Malthusians. There's nothing humans could do right now, not even implementing a one child policy, not even stopping reproduction completely, to fulfill their dream. So, if we were doomed, what is it that they're looking for? Surely it can't be saving humanity, nor saving the whole planet (apparently, they think that was only possible before 1927).

[Pattern-chaser]

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,

Complete nonsense. Humans consumed far less when there was 1 billion in 1800AD

You may have noticed that we have developed the means to consume many times more than we did then, and the appetite for such consumption too. When my parents bought their first house, they aspired to owning a refrigerator. And maybe living on a road where the bloke three doors down owned a car. That was in 1950 or so. You are surely aware of escalations (in consumption) that have occurred since.

.... 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? ⚰

Neverthless I think a million would be my choice. With current tech we could all live with space and luxury whilst being able to witness the re-wilding of our cultural landscapes.

A million is not many, but perhaps you're right to be cautious...?

[Sculptor1]

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,

Complete nonsense. Humans consumed far less when there was 1 billion in 1800AD

You may have noticed that we have developed the means to consume many times more than we did then, and the appetite for such consumption too. When my parents bought their first house, they aspired to owning a refrigerator. And maybe living on a road where the bloke three doors down owned a car. That was in 1950 or so. You are surely aware of escalations (in consumption) that have occurred since.

And we have the capacity to produce far more from less.
Seriously though, it is just stupid to claim that 1 billion will consume "more" than eight billion. If you want to be taken seriously you might want to turn down the hyperbole. Much as I would like to eat 16,000 calories a day to make up for the lost billions, I do not think I am capable.

.... 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? ⚰

Neverthless I think a million would be my choice. With current tech we could all live with space and luxury whilst being able to witness the re-wilding of our cultural landscapes.

A million is not many, but perhaps you're right to be cautious...?

A million is more than enough to be genetically sustainable. Many of the world's dwindling mammals are having to get by on thousands of individuals - in some cases 100s or even dozens.

[Sy Borg]

Much talk about the cause of the problems and trying to fix them. I see no fix, given the divided state of the world, just more disease, conflict and poverty - the "hard landing".

Humans have populated to the point of unsustainability and there is no turning back. 7.8 billion hamsters or gorillas might not have caused the same problems, but humans are voracious users of resources when given the chance.

[Jklint]

I don't see the logistics as important.

I should have said logistics and planning One needs the other to exist as in the following definition...

Logistics: the careful organization of a complicated activity so that it happens in a successful and effective way

One plans best based on what's already known or suspected and we've known long enough what the consequences are if ignored. Planning and performance would reduce a lot of our bad behaviors. Had we started earlier and planned ahead when Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962, though it may not have prevented everything that happened since but at least there would have been a higher probability of fewer extinctions not to mention the poles literally melting into the ocean or rain forests being slashed to pieces.

Re: "As long as we have human trash in charge of the planet and idiot clones willing to follow ..." has there been a time or place in history free of "human trash and idiot clones"?

No, not ever. But then and now are still very different from each other in spite of our depraved tendencies having pretty well remained constant. To "know ourselves" would be like looking at a picture of Dorian Gray. What's clear, to me at least, the more people living in a Ferengi society the greater its sacrifice of what immediately doesn't serve its purpose with barely any consideration of its long-term implications. Any addition to population in such a scenario is a blessing to an economy which operates on a premise of unlimited growth leading, on the liability side of the ledger, to a gross deterioration of the environment.

Since you mentioned the Thanos argument this article shows various perspectives on a complicated problem...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/ ... 3bcd8d1c58

Now it's just a matter of seeing how the destruction of most societies and ecosystems plays out. It was always going to happen, just that I would have preferred that humans has sufficient nous to engineer a "soft landing" for future generations. Now a hard landing is guaranteed as our numbers grow and we consume ever more.

Yes! It's happening and beyond simply starting a process which is now in acceleration. I couldn't care less about future generations because they appear just as clone-like as their predecessors. Being educated as walking functions, which most of them will be, won't solve the problem since the expertise to have avoided much of what's happening was already in place. Future generations would have been as much responsible for what's happening had they lived in prior times. As mentioned human trash and idiot clones are ubiquitous in every generation.

[Sy Borg]

I don't see the logistics as important.

I should have said logistics and planning One needs the other to exist as in the following definition...

Logistics: the careful organization of a complicated activity so that it happens in a successful and effective way

One plans best based on what's already known or suspected and we've known long enough what the consequences are if ignored. Planning and performance would reduce a lot of our bad behaviors. Had we started earlier and planned ahead when Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962, though it may not have prevented everything that happened since but at least there would have been a higher probability of fewer extinctions not to mention the poles literally melting into the ocean or rain forests being slashed to pieces.

I used to believe that humanity would find a way. I did not realise the extent of corruption. The good things promised last century were never going to happen.

Re: "As long as we have human trash in charge of the planet and idiot clones willing to follow ..." has there been a time or place in history free of "human trash and idiot clones"?

No, not ever. But then and now are still very different from each other in spite of our depraved tendencies having pretty well remained constant. To "know ourselves" would be like looking at a picture of Dorian Gray. What's clear, to me at least, the more people living in a Ferengi society the greater its sacrifice of what immediately doesn't serve its purpose with barely any consideration of its long-term implications. Any addition to population in such a scenario is a blessing to an economy which operates on a premise of unlimited growth leading, on the liability side of the ledger, to a gross deterioration of the environment.

Love the Dorian Gray analogy.

Since you mentioned the Thanos argument this article shows various perspectives on a complicated problem...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/ ... 3bcd8d1c58

Now it's just a matter of seeing how the destruction of most societies and ecosystems plays out. It was always going to happen, just that I would have preferred that humans has sufficient nous to engineer a "soft landing" for future generations. Now a hard landing is guaranteed as our numbers grow and we consume ever more.

Yes! It's happening and beyond simply starting a process which is now in acceleration. I couldn't care less about future generations because they appear just as clone-like as their predecessors. Being educated as walking functions, which most of them will be, won't solve the problem since the expertise to have avoided much of what's happening was already in place. Future generations would have been as much responsible for what's happening had they lived in prior times. As mentioned human trash and idiot clones are ubiquitous in every generation.

Basically, humanity has always been an evolutionary breaking point in waiting. Hence apocalypse myths appearing over multiple places and times; they probably sensed the innate non-sustainability of human dominance over other species. Every other species is kept in check by its competitors. Humans' competitors are other humans.

Re: the Forbes article. As usual, the writer ignores that most of nature has already been decimated or polluted. It was the usual (very PC IMO) "Oh, it's really more over-consumption" angle to guilt-trip western readers when the issue is clearly both a matter of numbers and consumption. This is not to excuse wasteful stupidity, such as buying ever larger cars at a time when resources are known to be stretched and roads are ever more clogged. I just don't like denial of the very obvious, which I see as gaslighting. Of course, there's too many of us, and of course we consume too much, and of course corrupt players are standing in the way of meaningful action on the environment. Hence decimated ecosystems the world over.

[Sculptor1]

I'm not interested in debating in that repetitive, chopped-up style you insist on using, Count.

If you think it's desirable to live shoulder-to-shoulder with other humans, to increasingly live in our own filth as we desertify once-pleasant lands, as the forests burn and even space is filled with debris, then that's a world for you, not for me.

What you are advocating is a "hard landing" - to stay in denial, blaming the rich (who are doing what others would do, given the chance) and to keep on breeding until systems inevitably break down. Then nature will culls the excess numbers.

The alternative is is to work to tax billionaires, hold environmentally damaging companies to account, and work to reduce breeding in the most profligate parts of the world - to save people being born into a nightmare, and to soften what will be inevitable blows because we have already so dramatically overpopulated.

There is no possible soft landing at this stage. The only question is how hard it will be.

The rich are insulated from situations as you describe"live in our own filth as we desertify once-pleasant lands, as the forests burn and even space is filled with debris, then that's a world for you, not for me."
Catholics are immune to reason when it comes to family planning.
The count is deficient on both counts.

[Pattern-chaser]

I used to believe that humanity would find a way. I did not realise the extent of corruption.

Corruption, not greed? I suppose one might imply the other?

[Pattern-chaser]

We have developed the means to consume many times more than we did then, and the appetite for such consumption too. When my parents bought their first house, they aspired to owning a refrigerator. And maybe living on a road where the bloke three doors down owned a car. That was in 1950 or so. You are surely aware of escalations (in consumption) that have occurred since.

And we have the capacity to produce far more from less.

We do? Interesting thought. But is it really so, I wonder?

Seriously though, it is just stupid to claim that 1 billion will consume "more" than eight billion.

Really? I refer you to empirical historical information, and that Axiom that says if it happened yesterday and today, we assume it will happen tomorrow too. Our consumption is constrained only by our lack of money. How many would choose to own a Ford if they could own a Bentley instead? How many would limit themselves to one home if they could actually have 3 or 4 holiday homes, especially if their friends and neighbours already had such things? We seem limited only by money, and money is a con-trick, an illusion, even though we can use it to buy things that are properly real. Once the Extinction Bonanza (I'm guessing how the media might label it) got under way, I think we could easily consume 10 times as much, or more. We await only the opportunity, I fear....