Serious thought? There is no such thing as "too many people on the planet." Unless, of course, you can put forward a process to determine WHICH people are excess as well as what is to be done with them and the process that keeps producing them. Have at it.
I don’t think you’ve thought this through. Ok 20 billion? Really?? That’s good? Be fruitful and multiply. And why is the human race so great? Other animals have suffered greatly from the proliferation of our particular primate.
Are you a human race traitor? Many species of animals and plants have been improved by human agriculture and science, what have other species done for us except provide nutrition, entertainment and companionship. 20 billion people is unlikely under any reasonable scenario but the earth could sustain that and still have other species flourishing.
“Many species of animals and plants have been improved by human agriculture and science”…”what have other species done for us”. You may have the most impoverished, blinkered ethics of anyone I’ve ever read on this site. Sophomoric, too: “Are you a human race traitor?” Humans have been virtually nothing but a brutally indifferent if not actively sadistic disaster to every other sentient (often very very highly-sentient) species on the planet. In scale and intensity of suffering, it’s hard to think of a single worse thing we have done and so blithely continue to do. For every domesticated dog (the companion animal most humans are most sympathetic to) humans have actually cared for and treated well, there are many more who’ve been mass-produced merely to be used and abused. It was very recently an extremely shallow and pointless trend for clueless humans to walk around with rolls of coyote fur collar which never even touched their bodies or insulated a single body part, on grossly overpriced coats, in very temperate cities…often while out walking dogs. Coyotes who were caught in agonizing pain and utter panic in metal leg traps to either bleed out, or die after chewing off limbs in a desperate effort to return to their young, or wait in agony until some trapper finally appeared to shoot or bludgeon them to death. Solely for a very tacky ridiculous decorative trim. And then there are pigs…Unless you have some sort of directly received religious input which you believe gives you the right to simply wave away the sentience of every other intelligent, socially and emotionally complex animal who has evolved to be and experience life similarly to us in so many ways, your only rationalization is “might makes right”. But, sure, why not see how many potential human lives can be forced onto the planet until it buckles under the obvious strain and there is no arable land - or nature, or wildlife left. An endless number of people will make resources forever abundant and cheap…because someone named Marian Tupy says so. Sounds plausible.
Indeed, as more than half of all tetrapod biomass is now human or human livestock, I'd say that our present population is already several times larger than it should be.
"Should" implies there is an ideal population. So what is that number and what is it ideal for? What is the goal of restricting or even rooting for population decline toward that ideal? You say "half of all tetrapod biomass is now human or human livestock" as though that explains something. Like we should understand that this stat is a problem. Why is it a problem? I guess I am trying to understand if your concerns are more about the well being of people who might suffer due to overpopulation or of other species and the planet in general.
A mixture of objective and subjective. The objective concern is ecological, and could ultimately be viewed as selfish (i.e. the preservation of just our species). The subjective concerns are a mixture of esthetic (i.e. the preservation of nature) and ethical (the preservation of wildlife). No, I can't convince you that nature and wildlife have intrinsic worth beyond simply keeping humans alive. But I assume that we agree that at least keeping humans safe and healthy is worth something. For that, a lush and robust biosphere is best.
I don’t think any of that is objective. Many people, including myself, are concerned about the preservation of other species, but I am not in agreement that fewer humans is the solution. How do you weigh the value of the existence of some large number of humans vs the value of the well being or existence of other species? I suppose if you could definitively say that at a certain number the human population would collapse and cause tremendous death and human suffering I would be willing to agree that we should try to avoid that number. But there are so many variables, mainly innovation, that no one could possibly make that prediction.
But you aren’t even talking about a number in the future. You seem to think we passed the ideal level a long time ago. How can you say that it would be a better situation if half the human population didn’t exist so that there was more unspoiled nature and biodiversity? And as for “keeping humans safe and healthy” (which I agree is a worthy goal), when the population was at 1 billion in 1800 were humans safer and healthier? When the population was a couple hundred thousand and we were part of the food chain and in harmony with nature, were humans safer and healthier? Though nature is beautiful and worth protecting, it is brutal and uncaring. Our main battle as a species has been to carve out some modicum of “safety and health” in a brutal world that is trying to kill us. We have done this through innovation, which was only possible by way of population growth and therefor brain power growth. So claiming fewer humans will result in improved safety and health seems backwards to me.
So I am on board with your goals - The safety and health of humans and the preservation of nature and other species. I just think your solution is wrong.
So how would you go about deciding who exactly represents excess "biomass," and just what measures are you prepared to support to achieve the level "it should be" (half of the present population, less if you only go after fatties)? If you're not up for the Soylent Green "solution," how do you propose to deal with those who are NOT on the demographic decline program (hint: look at population projections for Africa, Asia, Europe then speak VERY carefully about your "program.")
If the presumably "green" western democracies tied economic aid to something like rolling birth rates over a period of years to encourage smaller families (and in effect subsidize this), why is this any different to tying financing to the use of renewables? My point is that we have time, and there may be solutions that are beneficial to all. Let's find them.
Speaking at a policy level makes it too easy to overlook real moral concerns. I strongly agree with Richards warning about the possibility of evil being done in the furtherance of your goal.
Let's say there is an African couple that really wants to have a child. Should we discourage them because we are concerned their new baby will contribute to the degradation of the natural environment? Or would it be more morally acceptable to pay them off? Let's take advantage of the fact they are destitute (by western standards) and just throw them a couple bucks to forego the joy of bringing a baby into the world. Or let's just pay their government to strong arm them into compliance. I don't see any way of "encouraging" that doesn't take a turn toward the unethical.
Again, please expand on just what would be involved in the target countries' efforts "to encourage smaller families." Seems like you could be taking a position where, should evil be done in furtherance of your goal, at least your own hands would be, um, "clean." Further, what would be the readily foreseeable consequences of withholding economic aid to countries whose economies and social systems have become dependent on such largesse? And what if some substantial portion of that "aid" is in the form of electrical power stations, clean water systems, modern mining (low pollution, worker safety) practices, as well as direct food, medical, and anti-malarial (or AIDS or maternal health), supports? Would you subject the USA to such constraints based on "acceptable" population growth (and growth in which racial/ethnic groups specifically?) imposed by a supranational authority or even the US Government itself? If no, why not? And why wouldn't those concerns apply to the rest of the world?
Once again, you're responding as if population control implies that some people are denied existence. *Population control implies no such thing.*
Birth control, education (esp. women's education), women's rights, and economic development all lead to lowered birth rates, and are all in of themselves desirable things, and do not in of themselves kill anybody (unless you count abortions). The only controversial thing I'd add here is that closed borders are essential to encourage each nation to develop sensible population policies.
Knock yourself out in Africa. Alas, you won't have AIDS working for your goals anymore. PEPFAR, courtesy of the American taxpayer, saw to that. Bill and Melinda Gates have also been busy as little beavers supercharging the African reproduction rate (yay maternal health, boo malaria). You're talking out of your ass on "soft" population control. Your "education sessions" and "economic development" are stalking horses for forced abortions and exterminations (by one means or another). Not that there's anything wrong with that—it's just that you're stumbling into this whole thing totally blind to where things inevitably lead.
Serious thought? There is no such thing as "too many people on the planet." Unless, of course, you can put forward a process to determine WHICH people are excess as well as what is to be done with them and the process that keeps producing them. Have at it.
I don’t think you’ve thought this through. Ok 20 billion? Really?? That’s good? Be fruitful and multiply. And why is the human race so great? Other animals have suffered greatly from the proliferation of our particular primate.
Are you a human race traitor? Many species of animals and plants have been improved by human agriculture and science, what have other species done for us except provide nutrition, entertainment and companionship. 20 billion people is unlikely under any reasonable scenario but the earth could sustain that and still have other species flourishing.
“Many species of animals and plants have been improved by human agriculture and science”…”what have other species done for us”. You may have the most impoverished, blinkered ethics of anyone I’ve ever read on this site. Sophomoric, too: “Are you a human race traitor?” Humans have been virtually nothing but a brutally indifferent if not actively sadistic disaster to every other sentient (often very very highly-sentient) species on the planet. In scale and intensity of suffering, it’s hard to think of a single worse thing we have done and so blithely continue to do. For every domesticated dog (the companion animal most humans are most sympathetic to) humans have actually cared for and treated well, there are many more who’ve been mass-produced merely to be used and abused. It was very recently an extremely shallow and pointless trend for clueless humans to walk around with rolls of coyote fur collar which never even touched their bodies or insulated a single body part, on grossly overpriced coats, in very temperate cities…often while out walking dogs. Coyotes who were caught in agonizing pain and utter panic in metal leg traps to either bleed out, or die after chewing off limbs in a desperate effort to return to their young, or wait in agony until some trapper finally appeared to shoot or bludgeon them to death. Solely for a very tacky ridiculous decorative trim. And then there are pigs…Unless you have some sort of directly received religious input which you believe gives you the right to simply wave away the sentience of every other intelligent, socially and emotionally complex animal who has evolved to be and experience life similarly to us in so many ways, your only rationalization is “might makes right”. But, sure, why not see how many potential human lives can be forced onto the planet until it buckles under the obvious strain and there is no arable land - or nature, or wildlife left. An endless number of people will make resources forever abundant and cheap…because someone named Marian Tupy says so. Sounds plausible.
I thought chicks were all about creating and sustaining life. Guess I musta missed a memo.
How do you know my chick status? Haha. I don’t know yours either. But generally a dated old fashioned low blow comment.
Double question marks (and exclamation points) = chick. Always.
Is that so?? How interesting!
How did I no know that before?? LOL
"...no such thing as 'too many people on the planet.'"
So no possible number I could give would be too many? 700 trillion wouldn't be too many?
"...put forward a process to determine WHICH people are excess..."
There are several nations presently in demographic decline, all without the use of gas chambers, or whatever it is that you're picturing.
700 trillion. Have you considered quality of life under those (impossible) conditions?
Indeed, as more than half of all tetrapod biomass is now human or human livestock, I'd say that our present population is already several times larger than it should be.
"Should" implies there is an ideal population. So what is that number and what is it ideal for? What is the goal of restricting or even rooting for population decline toward that ideal? You say "half of all tetrapod biomass is now human or human livestock" as though that explains something. Like we should understand that this stat is a problem. Why is it a problem? I guess I am trying to understand if your concerns are more about the well being of people who might suffer due to overpopulation or of other species and the planet in general.
A mixture of objective and subjective. The objective concern is ecological, and could ultimately be viewed as selfish (i.e. the preservation of just our species). The subjective concerns are a mixture of esthetic (i.e. the preservation of nature) and ethical (the preservation of wildlife). No, I can't convince you that nature and wildlife have intrinsic worth beyond simply keeping humans alive. But I assume that we agree that at least keeping humans safe and healthy is worth something. For that, a lush and robust biosphere is best.
I don’t think any of that is objective. Many people, including myself, are concerned about the preservation of other species, but I am not in agreement that fewer humans is the solution. How do you weigh the value of the existence of some large number of humans vs the value of the well being or existence of other species? I suppose if you could definitively say that at a certain number the human population would collapse and cause tremendous death and human suffering I would be willing to agree that we should try to avoid that number. But there are so many variables, mainly innovation, that no one could possibly make that prediction.
But you aren’t even talking about a number in the future. You seem to think we passed the ideal level a long time ago. How can you say that it would be a better situation if half the human population didn’t exist so that there was more unspoiled nature and biodiversity? And as for “keeping humans safe and healthy” (which I agree is a worthy goal), when the population was at 1 billion in 1800 were humans safer and healthier? When the population was a couple hundred thousand and we were part of the food chain and in harmony with nature, were humans safer and healthier? Though nature is beautiful and worth protecting, it is brutal and uncaring. Our main battle as a species has been to carve out some modicum of “safety and health” in a brutal world that is trying to kill us. We have done this through innovation, which was only possible by way of population growth and therefor brain power growth. So claiming fewer humans will result in improved safety and health seems backwards to me.
So I am on board with your goals - The safety and health of humans and the preservation of nature and other species. I just think your solution is wrong.
So how would you go about deciding who exactly represents excess "biomass," and just what measures are you prepared to support to achieve the level "it should be" (half of the present population, less if you only go after fatties)? If you're not up for the Soylent Green "solution," how do you propose to deal with those who are NOT on the demographic decline program (hint: look at population projections for Africa, Asia, Europe then speak VERY carefully about your "program.")
If the presumably "green" western democracies tied economic aid to something like rolling birth rates over a period of years to encourage smaller families (and in effect subsidize this), why is this any different to tying financing to the use of renewables? My point is that we have time, and there may be solutions that are beneficial to all. Let's find them.
Speaking at a policy level makes it too easy to overlook real moral concerns. I strongly agree with Richards warning about the possibility of evil being done in the furtherance of your goal.
Let's say there is an African couple that really wants to have a child. Should we discourage them because we are concerned their new baby will contribute to the degradation of the natural environment? Or would it be more morally acceptable to pay them off? Let's take advantage of the fact they are destitute (by western standards) and just throw them a couple bucks to forego the joy of bringing a baby into the world. Or let's just pay their government to strong arm them into compliance. I don't see any way of "encouraging" that doesn't take a turn toward the unethical.
Again, please expand on just what would be involved in the target countries' efforts "to encourage smaller families." Seems like you could be taking a position where, should evil be done in furtherance of your goal, at least your own hands would be, um, "clean." Further, what would be the readily foreseeable consequences of withholding economic aid to countries whose economies and social systems have become dependent on such largesse? And what if some substantial portion of that "aid" is in the form of electrical power stations, clean water systems, modern mining (low pollution, worker safety) practices, as well as direct food, medical, and anti-malarial (or AIDS or maternal health), supports? Would you subject the USA to such constraints based on "acceptable" population growth (and growth in which racial/ethnic groups specifically?) imposed by a supranational authority or even the US Government itself? If no, why not? And why wouldn't those concerns apply to the rest of the world?
"...who exactly represents excess 'biomass,'..."
Once again, you're responding as if population control implies that some people are denied existence. *Population control implies no such thing.*
Birth control, education (esp. women's education), women's rights, and economic development all lead to lowered birth rates, and are all in of themselves desirable things, and do not in of themselves kill anybody (unless you count abortions). The only controversial thing I'd add here is that closed borders are essential to encourage each nation to develop sensible population policies.
Knock yourself out in Africa. Alas, you won't have AIDS working for your goals anymore. PEPFAR, courtesy of the American taxpayer, saw to that. Bill and Melinda Gates have also been busy as little beavers supercharging the African reproduction rate (yay maternal health, boo malaria). You're talking out of your ass on "soft" population control. Your "education sessions" and "economic development" are stalking horses for forced abortions and exterminations (by one means or another). Not that there's anything wrong with that—it's just that you're stumbling into this whole thing totally blind to where things inevitably lead.