overpopulation? What is the answer?

[Final]

edit: nvm

 

[gorski]

The presumption of cornucopians is everything will always be alright because it is alright for me right now.

And how is that relevant for what I wrote?

 

[david dissadent]

And how is that relevant for what I wrote?

A counter point to your meaningless waffle. Your post was in effect argumentum ad hominem against "doomsday scenarios" without providing any solid fact to back up the fact that there could soon be very serious problems feeding people around the world.

 

[gorski]

Says a man who can't think for love or money

How on Earth do you immediately jump to such far reaching conclusions, in an accusatory manner, with such absolute certainty - by which heavenly, hellish or earthly "logic"?!? PhD in Logics and Methodology, you surely must have...

And just how arrogant that is!! Claiming such mindless bullshit without asking me what - if anything - did I positively claim on the topic - mindboggling...

 

[ViolentPanda]

The places where population seems to still be rising very fast - parts of Africa, Bangladesh, etc - look likely to be the ones worst affected by climate change and the consequent crop failure etc., within the next 50 years or so.

We also need to remember that the continent of Africa has been by far the most severely affected part of the world in terms of AIDS.

I can almost see why conspiracy theorists have so many of their stories based on AIDS, it sometimes seems almost too opportune in terms of gradually de-populating a resource-rich continent.

 

[gorski]

Btw, just so there's no misunderstanding on this one: to begin to understand my "meaningless waffle" you would have to study some Philosophy and seriously and most likely not in the Anglo-American world...

And that's to be able to start thinking about it seriously...

 

[david dissadent]

Btw, just so there's no misunderstanding on this one: to begin to understand my "meaningless waffle" you would have to study some Philosophy and seriously and most likely not in the Anglo-American world...

And that's to be able to start thinking about it seriously...

Philosphy does not feed people. Food does.

The debate is about the worlds population and and resources. Have you anything to say about this other than your poetic philosphical musings on the motives of peoples who's opinions you do not like?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Btw, just so there's no misunderstanding on this one: to begin to understand my "meaningless waffle" you would have to study some Philosophy and seriously and most likely not in the Anglo-American world...

And that's to be able to start thinking about it seriously...

You're ever so self-effacing, aren't you?

 

[david dissadent]

We also need to remember that the continent of Africa has been by far the most severely affected part of the world in terms of AIDS.

I can almost see why conspiracy theorists have so many of their stories based on AIDS, it sometimes seems almost too opportune in terms of gradually de-populating a resource-rich continent.

Africa is not depopulating.

E2A have I read you right?

 

[gorski]

Philosphy does not feed people. Food does.

The debate is about the worlds population and and resources. Have you anything to say about this other than your poetic philosphical musings on the motives of peoples who's opinions you do not like?

I can't debate with such deep thinkers, fuck it.

[Food?!? REALLY?!? WOW!!!!]

 

[gorski]

You're ever so self-effacing, aren't you?

Have to give him something to wriggle out of it all - I'm not that merciless, you know...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Philosphy does not feed people. Food does.

The debate is about the worlds population and and resources. Have you anything to say about this other than your poetic philosphical musings on the motives of peoples who's opinions you do not like?

I was re-reading Vandana Shiva's "Biopiracy" the other day, and her points about the increasingly small incremental production growth achieved by new agricultural technologies (mostly "bio") illustrate the resource ramifications very clearly: We can't match projected population growth with available agriculture.

I also read an interesting book published by Worldwatch called "Beyond Malthus: Nineteen Dimensions of the Population Challenge" which attempted to examine population growth and development and match it to resource availability projections.

The end-position in both books boils down to "change or die".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Africa is not depopulating.

E2A have I read you right?

Sorry, should have made myself clearer.
From what I've read (including a section of the "Beyond Malthus" book I mention above), parts of sub-Saharan Africa are approaching a tipping point (around 2015 worst case) where new infections, lack of access to decent medical care and death will exceed new births, causing de facto depopulation, plus accelerated spread through the normal routes (seasonal migratory employment etc) due to the population decline.
Personally I hope to hell something gets pulled out of the bag treatment-wise before this happens.

 

[ska invita]

The answer is easy - have less children. Have no more than 2 kids a couple and the poluation will decrease naturally over time.

Of course capitalism needs an every growing population - see the panic at falling birthrates in Europe. France now pays parents to have more kids.

We had a good thread on this here:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=129645
-lots of good links in there, plus some science!

 

[gorski]

Exactly: the inner logic of capital-relationship is growth. If we don't expand and grow - we're fooked and doomed...

Bollocks to it all! If one doesn't accumulate endlessly and ever more - then what? The end of the world?

Nope, just capitalism as we know it.

There's your step in the right direction to the question...

 

[david dissadent]

The answer is easy - have less children. Have no more than 2 kids a couple and the poluation will decrease naturally over time.

and how precisely do you force people to do that?

Of course capitalism needs an every growing population - see the panic at falling birthrates in Europe. France now pays parents to have more kids.

Um so why does economic growth in so many capitalist countries massively outstrip population growth?

 

[david dissadent]

Exactly: the inner logic of capital-relationship is growth. If we don't expand and grow - we're fooked and doomed...

Bollocks to it all! If one doesn't accumulate endlessly and ever more - then what? The end of the world?

Nope, just capitalism as we know it.

There's your step in the right direction to the question...

So what precisely replaces capitalism and allows the population to grow? How will it replace the aquifer water that is being used up and not replaced, or farm in a world with accelerating climate change?

 

[david dissadent]

Personally I hope to hell something gets pulled out of the bag treatment-wise before this happens.

Treatment is availible. Financing it is not.

The end-position in both books boils down to "change or die".

For whom? Those with large economies will continue to be able to afford fertilisers, oils, machinary and labour to produce food long after those who cant have died off. The people at risk of dying first are the ones who have the least room to change.

It is unlikely that Europe or North America will experiance widespread malnutrition in the next 50 years yet countries such as Egypt, Pakistan and Bangladesh may face it this year.

Perhaps "change or poor people will die" would more accuaretely reflect the problem.

 

[Yossarian]

The presumptions for the doomsday scenario charmers are:

-we have seen the future [and there's nowt new under the Sun in it]... [quazi-communists, that is the Bolshevik conservatives, having come back from the future, taking the "lead", claimimg they have the "knowledge of History", i.e. the perfect knowledge of Past, Present and Future, all at once, so they must take us to the "only viable option there is"...]

-nothing new is possible [no new discoveries, inventions, developments etc.], as in EVER!!! [right wing conservatives ]

-we know exactly what is happening [we have a Godly-perfect overview of "reality", unlike everybody else] [both right and left heavy-duty eejuts, but especially the rightists...

-human nature as such [as opposed to "in this particular era/space/civilisation/culture"] is horrible [and we have nothing to learn about it, we know it all!!!] [right wing twats]

-you [all] must do as we tell you to... {as you are either children [Stalinists] or horrible, nasty creatures [rightist conservatives] and we must guide you by the hand, as we are borne to rule...] [both of them arrogant wankers]}

Yaykssss....

Hey, grski, What part of the non-Anglo-American world's philosophy should I study if I want to make sense of this post?

 

[Wolveryeti]

Slip contraceptives in the water supply without telling anyone.

 

[Dandred]

Slip contraceptives in the water supply without telling anyone.

Bring back the plague

 

[Final]

Of course capitalism needs an every growing population - see the panic at falling birthrates in Europe. France now pays parents to have more kids.

Capitalism doesn't necessarily need an ever growing population.

The Global Trap has a series of good arguments which suggest otherwise.

It's an interesting read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Trap

 

[Barking_Mad]

Slip contraceptives in the water supply without telling anyone.

They wouldn't do that, they LOVE US!

I mean we get to vote and, ermm hmmm

 

[nino_savatte]

Philosphy does not feed people. Food does.

The debate is about the worlds population and and resources. Have you anything to say about this other than your poetic philosphical musings on the motives of peoples who's opinions you do not like?

I think if more people learned philosophy we wouldn't be suffering from such a dearth of ideas and a preponderance of lazy thinking. To work out solutions for problems one needs some form of philosophical thought/discussion.

It is no wonder that we live in a country where thinking (as well as learning and erudition) is looked upon with such disdain, when so many dismiss philosophy as 'useless'.

Marx was a philosopher, was he not?

 

[gorski]

Opaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think if more people learned philosophy we wouldn't be suffering from such a dearth of ideas and a preponderance of lazy thinking. To work out solutions for problems one needs some form of philosophical thought/discussion.

It is no wonder that we live in a country where thinking (as well as learning and erudition) is looked upon with such disdain, when so many dismiss philosophy as 'useless'.

Marx was a philosopher, was he not?

Now, I have the audacity to call myself a "frustrated utopian" - and look at you!!!!

Bloody well done and right on the money 100000000000000000000%!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[nino_savatte]

Now, I have the audacity to call myself a "frustrated utopian" - and look at you!!!!:

Bloody well done and right on the money 100000000000000000000%!!!!!!!!!!!!!

évidemment!

 

[butchersapron]

Marx was a critic of philosophy not a philosopher. In the same way that he was a critic of economics, not an economist.

 

[Spion]

Marx was a critic of philosophy not a philosopher. In the same way that he was a critic of economics, not an economist.

A fucking good point

 

[nino_savatte]

Hair splitter. But then BA is following me around even though I've put the tosser on ignore.

Get a fucking life.

 

[nino_savatte]

A fucking good point

And the difference is what, precisely?