Should we pay people to die?

[Saint Frankenstein]

You mean we need to in effect make the world population even higher than it's projected to be? How many billions do you think we should aim for? And why?

The world population is due to level out around mid-century. It's not going to keep climbing. I think people should have kids as normal, you know, so society can continue.

 

[Secret Chief]

Some use it racially, not all do. I don't see anything incorrect about it, anyway. It is a thing that's happening. I'm not going to ignore reality. I see it happening all around me.

As @Debater Slayer 's link stated, it is a white-nationalist far-right conspiracy theory, but maybe that's not mentioned in the places you get your ideas from.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I've read the 1st link. It's enuf to respond thus.
Your quote doesn't quite support your claim...
".... isn't a cause for concern in general."

I find the article egregious in its focusing upon
ability to feed a great population growth, while
ignoring deleterious environmental, economic,
& social consequences. They don't consider
the desire of 3rd world countries to live western
lifestyles, & where this will lead with even more
people, exacerbating the problems we now have.

Finally, the article introduces the provocative
statement....
"Therefore, the enactment of heavy-handed population-control regulations is not only abhorrent, but is also irrational and unsupported by scientific evidence."
This isn't even on the table in western governments,
yet we see people frightened that this is the threat.
It impedes discussion of the problem.


I don't know about you, but I value the natural
environment. To face its continued degradation
in order to increase the population is really bad
(IMO).
I read about the oceans being denuded of life,
of rainforests being rapidly burned, of macro &
micro plastics being in everything everywhere,
about soaring costs of living in ever more crowded
cities, of land lost to rising seas, of mass extinctions,
ie, the Anthropocene Extinction.
More people means more of those effects. I see
some don't care about that, & want even more people
on the planet. But their lack of concern doesn't mean
"over-population" is bogus or a hoax..only that they're
much less with the effects of population increase.

But that's the whole point I'm making: population numbers aren't themselves the issue; it's our unsustainable way of life. Right now, we're reaching a breaking point due to climate change that will keep progressing even if we stop reproducing tomorrow.

The environmental destruction you cite is a direct result of large-scale industry, mass farming, unsustainable corporate practices, reliance on fossil fuels, and consumerism. It's tied more into a specific lifestyle than population numbers.

 

[Secret Chief]

The world population is due to level out around mid-century. It's not going to keep climbing. I think people should have kids as normal, you know, so society can continue.

And welcome to the sixth great extinction.

 

[Secret Chief]

But that's the whole point I'm making: population numbers aren't themselves the issue; it's our unsustainable way of life. Right now, we're reaching a breaking point due to climate change that will keep progressing even if we stop reproducing tomorrow.

The environmental destruction you cite is a direct result of large-scale industry, mass farming, unsustainable corporate practices, and consumerism. It's tied more into a specific lifestyle than population numbers.

Sure industry/farming/consumerism are the causes, but the magnitude of the damage caused by these is surely related to population size and growth? If there were 1 billion humans, rather than 8 billion would we not be racing as quickly to biosphere decimation?

 

[Quintessence]

Sure industry/farming/consumerism are the causes, but the magnitude of the damage caused by these is surely related to population size and growth? If there were 1 billion humans, rather than 8 billion would we not be racing as quickly to biosphere decimation?

It is. That's why environmental philosophers wrote about the IPAT equation being multiplicative.

I (impact) = P (population) x A (affluence) x T (technology)

For clarification, affluence refers to the resource consumption per unit of population, while technology refers to the resource-intensiveness of resource creation.

The equation is a bit of a simplification, but it is useful on the whole for general understanding. It leaves out beneficial impacts, which is a bit unfair, and the factors are interconnected rather than independent from one another. For example, you cannot get high P without high T.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Sure industry/farming/consumerism are the causes, but the magnitude of the damage caused by these is surely related to population size and growth? If there were 1 billion humans, rather than 8 billion would we not be racing as quickly to biosphere decimation?

Of course, but this leads to another question: what would be the "acceptable" number of humans on the planet who could live such an environmentally destructive lifestyle?

Wealthier, more industrialized, and oil-producing countries often emit significantly more CO2 per capita than poor, famine-hit countries. The latter sometimes have high birth rates for multiple reasons, including lack of access to contraceptives and the need to have more children to support them in manual labor.

If we look at these statistics and say that the poorer populations should reproduce less, it seems to me that we'll just be telling them to foot the bill for other countries' unsustainable way of life. Some of the world's biggest contributors to environmental damage and climate change already have low birth rates anyway.

 

[Revoltingest]

But that's the whole point I'm making: population numbers aren't themselves the issue; it's our unsustainable way of life.

I see no perfectly sustainable way of life.
So population size is indeed a factor in
environmental degradation, pollution,
& cost of living.

Right now, we're reaching a breaking point due to climate change that will keep progressing even if we stop reproducing tomorrow.

To continue expanding the population will
worsen things relative to the current level.

The environmental destruction you cite is a direct result of large-scale industry, mass farming, unsustainable corporate practices, reliance on fossil fuels, and consumerism. It's tied more into a specific lifestyle than population numbers.

Those are the very things that enabled feeding
a population larger than earlier predictions allowed.
And our lifestyle, even if curbed somewhat, is being
pursued by 3rd world countries.

Technological advances won't solve the fundamental
problems, even clean cheap fusion energy. Unanticipated
consequences will bite us in the pigu. A larger population
will inexorably exacerbate the Anthropocene Extinction.

So the issue boils down to how we balance population
size vs the problems associated with continued growth.
What measures will various societies take to optimize?
Tough choices await.
I don't have the answers.

 

[Heyo]

The world population is due to level out around mid-century.

And to collapse shortly after.

It's not going to keep climbing.

Yep, quite the opposite in fact.

I think people should have kids as normal, you know, so society can continue.

No. Society will catastrophically collapse if we keep on breeding. It can collapse in a controlled way if we start shrinking now.

 

[Secret Chief]

Of course, but this leads to another question: what would be the "acceptable" number of humans on the planet who could live such an environmentally destructive lifestyle?

Wealthier, more industrialized, and oil-producing countries often emit significantly more CO2 per capita than poor, famine-hit countries. The latter sometimes have high birth rates for multiple reasons, including lack of access to contraceptives and the need to have more children to support them in manual labor.

If we look at these statistics and say that the poorer populations should reproduce less, it seems to me that we'll just be telling them to foot the bill for other countries' unsustainable way of life. Some of the world's biggest contributors to environmental damage and climate change already have low birth rates anyway.

I agree it's complex and so there is no easy "solution." But I agree with the earlier sentiment that Nature will of course have it's own solution. We as individuals probably won't enjoy it.

 

[Secret Chief]

And to collapse shortly after.Yep, quite the opposite in fact.
No. Society will catastrophically collapse if we keep on breeding. It can collapse in a controlled way if we start shrinking now.

But the foreigners are out-breeding us! We need to **** more!

 

[Debater Slayer]

I see no perfectly sustainable way of life.
So population size is indeed a factor in
environmental degradation, pollution,
& cost of living.

Pursuing perfection is unnecessary. We can just settle for a way of life that doesn't rush itself into extinction.

To continue expanding the population will
worsen things relative to the current level.

Not as much as continuing to burn fossil fuels or bulldoze forests to build industrial farms, both of which would still be real problems if the whole world went infertile now.

Those are the very things that enabled feeding
a population larger than earlier predictions allowed.
And our lifestyle, even if curbed somewhat, is being
pursued by 3rd world countries.

Technological advances won't solve the fundamental
problems, even clean cheap fusion energy. Unanticipated
consequences will bite us in the pigu. A larger population
will necessarily exacerbate the Anthropocene Extinction.

So the issue boils down to how we balance population
size vs the problems associated with it. What measures
will various societies take to optimize?

I favor a balance as well. I just don't think there's any easy answer, much less one that simply blames "overpopulation" while neglecting to sufficiently address the other glaring issues.

 

[Revoltingest]

Pursuing perfection is unnecessary.

I loathe pursuit of perfection.
I never suggested it.
It's the enemy of good.

We can just settle for a way of life that doesn't rush itself into extinction.

Extinction isn't a realistic risk.
But loss of quality of life is.

Not as much as continuing to burn fossil fuels or bulldoze forests to build industrial farms, both of which would still be real problems if the whole world went infertile now.

We don't know how long & to what extent
we'll depend upon burning fossil fuels. Nor
do we know what sacrifices will be made in
ending their use.
Whatever the levels, a greater population
burns more. But that's only one problem
from among many I cited.

I favor a balance as well. I just don't think there's any easy answer, much less one that simply blames "overpopulation" while neglecting to sufficiently address the other glaring issues.

If I'm said to be "blaming overpopulation",
then it's fair for me to say that you're
"ignoring overpopulation" in the false
belief that technology & social change
will solve all our problems.

 

[exchemist]

This is exactly the "great replacement" that people have been talking about - Western workers being replaced by third world immigrants in their own homelands. No, they need to stay in their countries and we need to fix the mess with ours.

Why? Surely it is more elegant by far that we solve our chronic labour shortage by giving a hand up to people from poorer places? What's the harm in that?

 

[Secret Chief]

Why? Surely it is more elegant by far that we solve our chronic labour shortage by giving a hand up to people from poorer places? What's the harm in that?

Because it's being organised by a Jewish elite. I just read that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why? Surely it is more elegant by far that we solve our chronic labour shortage by giving a hand up to people from poorer places? What's the harm in that?

Would it really solve that problem.
We've had much immigration, yet the problem persists.
The only sure change is that population grows, & more
land is paved over.

 

[exchemist]

Because it's being organised by a Jewish elite. I just read that.

George Soros, you mean? You've been reading @Estro Felino 's posts again.

 

[Sand Dancer]

From an evolutionary viewpoint it makes sense for human beings to live on past their reproductive age, for the reasons I tried to explain. Human knowledge, handed on from the experience of older people, has survival advantage for the tribe and for the genes they share. That means it is a trait that should be selected for by the evolutionary process.

Maybe I meant purely biologically.

 

[Sand Dancer]

This is exactly the "great replacement" that people have been talking about - Western workers being replaced by third world immigrants in their own homelands. No, they need to stay in their countries and we need to fix the mess with ours.

I think if they have something they can do to benefit us and want to assimilate more or less, why is that bad? Should no one be allowed to move to other countries?

 

[exchemist]

Maybe I meant purely biologically.

Evolution is biological. Acquisition of knowledge has biological value. There’s no need to split its effects from the rest of what makes an animal species thrive.