"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.
"I don’t think any of that is objective." / "...no one could possibly make that prediction."
Being unable to precisely say what a safe population level might be isn't the same as saying there isn't an objective reality about Earth's carrying capacity. That species-poor ecosystems are more fragile is indeed an objective fact.
"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?"
Now you're conflating the part I explicitly described as subjective with the objective part. But yeah, there is something pseudo-objective about noting that a single species couldn't possibly be worth more than thousands of others. It might be that humans are worth more than any one other species, but to think that all else is worth less than humanity is rather obvious bias.
"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?"
For the reasons given. You can disagree with those, but please don't pretend that I didn't give them.
Also, what is meant by 'half the human population'? Even if 700 trillion humans populated the planet, that would only be an infinitesimal sampling of all possible humans. *Any* population level is only a portion of what could be. IOW, a small population does NOT cost anyone their existence, whilst their existence DOES have ethical and ecological costs.
"...when the population was at 1 billion in 1800 were humans safer and healthier?"
Ecologically safer, yes. Rather obviously, health is related to several factors.
"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?" / "So claiming fewer humans will result in improved safety and health seems backwards to me."
Heck, if we were a population of just one, that wouldn't be safe or healthy at all! Straw man.
"...innovation..."
Leads to both good and evil. Eg. the day will soon come when amateurs can create whole new viruses in their garage labs. We've been lucky so far, but there's no a priori reason to just assume that solutions will always be found in time to address the new problems that we create for ourselves.
Beyond space-time itself, Nature gives us no examples whatsoever of endless exponential growth. Trends are always capped by cycles or crashes. Belief in eternal progress is far more religious than empirical.
—“Being unable to precisely say what a safe population level might be isn't the same as saying there isn't an objective reality about Earth's carrying capacity.”
This might have been a good point if your initial claim was simply that there is a theoretical maximum carrying capacity of earth. That wasn’t your claim. Your claim was that “our present population is already several times larger than it should be.” By the way, this is an example of a straw man. The one you accused me of was not.
—“Now you're conflating …But yeah, there is something pseudo-objective about noting that a single species couldn't possibly be worth more than thousands of others…”
Pseudo-objective? So in other words, subjective.
Ok so you have 2 buttons. One kills all humans and the other kills ten thousand other species. Which do you push? Sounds silly, but the idea that humans “couldn’t possibly” be worth more than thousands of other species is wrong. Humans could possibly be worth more, and I believe they are.
—“Heck, if we were a population of just one, that wouldn't be safe or healthy at all! Straw man.”
Its comical the person who used a 700 trillion human population as an example then calls my hunter gatherer population argument a straw man. But let me explain why my argument is not a straw man. Your claim was that lower populations in the past were better. And you defined “better” in terms of the health of the ecosystem and the health and safety of humans. I was giving you 2 real life examples (1800 and hunter gatherer days) to show that population growth led to better human health and safety. That is a direct response to your claim. That is not a straw man.
—“Ecologically safer, yes. Rather obviously, health is related to several factors.”
Ok what about overall safer? Or overall healthier? As in were people more likely to suffer and die young in 1800 than they are today?
—“….IOW, a small population does NOT cost anyone their existence, whilst their existence DOES have ethical and ecological costs.”
You are playing this game where you discount people who do not yet exist yet heavily consider the value of animals that do not yet exist. If current human population comes at the cost of current animal well being then we would need to get rid of current humans. You agree doing this would be unethical. But to save future animals (who do not currently exist) we would need to forego the creation of future humans (who do not currently exist). You believe NOT doing this would be unethical. I don't follow.
"This might have been a good point if your initial claim was simply that there is a theoretical maximum carrying capacity of earth. That wasn’t your claim. Your claim was that 'our present population is already several times larger than it should be.'"
Those are not mutually exclusive claims. Nor is it clear that carrying capacity is a fixed point with clear warning signals that one has approached or even passed it.
"Pseudo-objective? So in other words, subjective."
To repeat, you had equated my subjective argument with an objective claim, so I don't need to show that it was actually objective. Furthermore, yes, a claim can indeed lie somewhere between objective and subjective.
"Which do you push?"
And if you had to choose between saving all your family and friends vs all the strangers in the world, which button would you choose? How about we step back and achieve a little more objectivity: You're an alien visitor given the same dilemma. Keep in mind that 'species' can range from worthless parasites to important keystone species without which life would be miserable. And they can range from mindless bacteria to nearly sapient beings with emotional lives as rich as our own.
"If current human population comes at the cost of current animal well being then we would need to get rid of current humans."
Sure, if humans had no value whatsoever. But I made no such claim. There are indeed species I'd gladly eliminate for human benefit (e.g. certain mosquito species). Your "you must eliminate humans so animals can exist" argument is another straw man.
"Its comical the person who used a 700 trillion human population as an example then calls my hunter gatherer population argument a straw man."
Context. I didn't posit that as a goal of yours, and gave no indication that you would view the number favorably. That number was given in comparison to all *possible* humans (an unimaginably vast number) to make a rather different rhetorical point (namely that *any' population number 'prevents' untold trillions form existing). You're free to ignore that point, but please don't pretend that it was something completely different.
"Ok what about overall safer? Or overall healthier?"
I very clearly said "ecologically safer," and said nothing about health. As an example of what I meant, depending on reduced number of monocultures puts humans at huge risk for disease and famine. Think potato famine. As for health...
"Your claim was that lower populations in the past were better."
Nope. My claim is simply that, *all other things being equal*, there are ideal population levels that are probably (much) lower than present. Rather obviously, things like medical and agricultural technology make a huge difference, and to pretend that I'm claiming population size is the only possible factor is indeed a straw man. Your insistence on this straw man comes across as cheap rhetorical tactic, and leads me to wonder if you're 'debating' me in good faith.
We are no longer debating your original claim. You are pretending like we are, but you have modified the claim and made new, softer claims and are arguing those. And you seem to be intentionally mischaracterizing my responses. For example:
You say people in 1800 were: “Ecologically safer, yes. Rather obviously, health is related to several factors.”
I respond with a question: “Ok what about overall safer? Or overall healthier? As in were people more likely to suffer and die young in 1800 than they are today?”
You respond with: “I very clearly said "ecologically safer," and said nothing about health….”
Did you really misunderstand my response? I clearly acknowledged the narrow nature of your response and asked a follow up / clarifying question. Then you made it sound like I was trying to put words in your mouth.
Or
I said: “If current human population comes at the cost of current animal well being then we would need to get rid of current humans. You agree doing this would be unethical….”
You cut my quote short and responded with:“Sure, if humans had no value whatsoever. But I made no such claim…. Your "you must eliminate humans so animals can exist" argument is another straw man.”
Did you really not see the part where I very clearly stated “YOU AGREE DOING THIS WOULD BE UNETHICAL.” Or was your mischaracterization intentional?
And to top it off you question whether I am debating in good faith.
"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.
"I don’t think any of that is objective." / "...no one could possibly make that prediction."
Being unable to precisely say what a safe population level might be isn't the same as saying there isn't an objective reality about Earth's carrying capacity. That species-poor ecosystems are more fragile is indeed an objective fact.
"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?"
Now you're conflating the part I explicitly described as subjective with the objective part. But yeah, there is something pseudo-objective about noting that a single species couldn't possibly be worth more than thousands of others. It might be that humans are worth more than any one other species, but to think that all else is worth less than humanity is rather obvious bias.
"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?"
For the reasons given. You can disagree with those, but please don't pretend that I didn't give them.
Also, what is meant by 'half the human population'? Even if 700 trillion humans populated the planet, that would only be an infinitesimal sampling of all possible humans. *Any* population level is only a portion of what could be. IOW, a small population does NOT cost anyone their existence, whilst their existence DOES have ethical and ecological costs.
"...when the population was at 1 billion in 1800 were humans safer and healthier?"
Ecologically safer, yes. Rather obviously, health is related to several factors.
"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?" / "So claiming fewer humans will result in improved safety and health seems backwards to me."
Heck, if we were a population of just one, that wouldn't be safe or healthy at all! Straw man.
"...innovation..."
Leads to both good and evil. Eg. the day will soon come when amateurs can create whole new viruses in their garage labs. We've been lucky so far, but there's no a priori reason to just assume that solutions will always be found in time to address the new problems that we create for ourselves.
Beyond space-time itself, Nature gives us no examples whatsoever of endless exponential growth. Trends are always capped by cycles or crashes. Belief in eternal progress is far more religious than empirical.
Quote battle!
—“Being unable to precisely say what a safe population level might be isn't the same as saying there isn't an objective reality about Earth's carrying capacity.”
This might have been a good point if your initial claim was simply that there is a theoretical maximum carrying capacity of earth. That wasn’t your claim. Your claim was that “our present population is already several times larger than it should be.” By the way, this is an example of a straw man. The one you accused me of was not.
—“Now you're conflating …But yeah, there is something pseudo-objective about noting that a single species couldn't possibly be worth more than thousands of others…”
Pseudo-objective? So in other words, subjective.
Ok so you have 2 buttons. One kills all humans and the other kills ten thousand other species. Which do you push? Sounds silly, but the idea that humans “couldn’t possibly” be worth more than thousands of other species is wrong. Humans could possibly be worth more, and I believe they are.
—“Heck, if we were a population of just one, that wouldn't be safe or healthy at all! Straw man.”
Its comical the person who used a 700 trillion human population as an example then calls my hunter gatherer population argument a straw man. But let me explain why my argument is not a straw man. Your claim was that lower populations in the past were better. And you defined “better” in terms of the health of the ecosystem and the health and safety of humans. I was giving you 2 real life examples (1800 and hunter gatherer days) to show that population growth led to better human health and safety. That is a direct response to your claim. That is not a straw man.
—“Ecologically safer, yes. Rather obviously, health is related to several factors.”
Ok what about overall safer? Or overall healthier? As in were people more likely to suffer and die young in 1800 than they are today?
—“….IOW, a small population does NOT cost anyone their existence, whilst their existence DOES have ethical and ecological costs.”
You are playing this game where you discount people who do not yet exist yet heavily consider the value of animals that do not yet exist. If current human population comes at the cost of current animal well being then we would need to get rid of current humans. You agree doing this would be unethical. But to save future animals (who do not currently exist) we would need to forego the creation of future humans (who do not currently exist). You believe NOT doing this would be unethical. I don't follow.
"This might have been a good point if your initial claim was simply that there is a theoretical maximum carrying capacity of earth. That wasn’t your claim. Your claim was that 'our present population is already several times larger than it should be.'"
Those are not mutually exclusive claims. Nor is it clear that carrying capacity is a fixed point with clear warning signals that one has approached or even passed it.
"Pseudo-objective? So in other words, subjective."
To repeat, you had equated my subjective argument with an objective claim, so I don't need to show that it was actually objective. Furthermore, yes, a claim can indeed lie somewhere between objective and subjective.
"Which do you push?"
And if you had to choose between saving all your family and friends vs all the strangers in the world, which button would you choose? How about we step back and achieve a little more objectivity: You're an alien visitor given the same dilemma. Keep in mind that 'species' can range from worthless parasites to important keystone species without which life would be miserable. And they can range from mindless bacteria to nearly sapient beings with emotional lives as rich as our own.
"If current human population comes at the cost of current animal well being then we would need to get rid of current humans."
Sure, if humans had no value whatsoever. But I made no such claim. There are indeed species I'd gladly eliminate for human benefit (e.g. certain mosquito species). Your "you must eliminate humans so animals can exist" argument is another straw man.
"Its comical the person who used a 700 trillion human population as an example then calls my hunter gatherer population argument a straw man."
Context. I didn't posit that as a goal of yours, and gave no indication that you would view the number favorably. That number was given in comparison to all *possible* humans (an unimaginably vast number) to make a rather different rhetorical point (namely that *any' population number 'prevents' untold trillions form existing). You're free to ignore that point, but please don't pretend that it was something completely different.
"Ok what about overall safer? Or overall healthier?"
I very clearly said "ecologically safer," and said nothing about health. As an example of what I meant, depending on reduced number of monocultures puts humans at huge risk for disease and famine. Think potato famine. As for health...
"Your claim was that lower populations in the past were better."
Nope. My claim is simply that, *all other things being equal*, there are ideal population levels that are probably (much) lower than present. Rather obviously, things like medical and agricultural technology make a huge difference, and to pretend that I'm claiming population size is the only possible factor is indeed a straw man. Your insistence on this straw man comes across as cheap rhetorical tactic, and leads me to wonder if you're 'debating' me in good faith.
We are no longer debating your original claim. You are pretending like we are, but you have modified the claim and made new, softer claims and are arguing those. And you seem to be intentionally mischaracterizing my responses. For example:
You say people in 1800 were: “Ecologically safer, yes. Rather obviously, health is related to several factors.”
I respond with a question: “Ok what about overall safer? Or overall healthier? As in were people more likely to suffer and die young in 1800 than they are today?”
You respond with: “I very clearly said "ecologically safer," and said nothing about health….”
Did you really misunderstand my response? I clearly acknowledged the narrow nature of your response and asked a follow up / clarifying question. Then you made it sound like I was trying to put words in your mouth.
Or
I said: “If current human population comes at the cost of current animal well being then we would need to get rid of current humans. You agree doing this would be unethical….”
You cut my quote short and responded with:“Sure, if humans had no value whatsoever. But I made no such claim…. Your "you must eliminate humans so animals can exist" argument is another straw man.”
Did you really not see the part where I very clearly stated “YOU AGREE DOING THIS WOULD BE UNETHICAL.” Or was your mischaracterization intentional?
And to top it off you question whether I am debating in good faith.
Nicely done. EMS and clean-up crews have been dispatched to deal with the wreckage of JB's, um, argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-F7mN7H7WQ