Why civilization itself is unsustainable

[JadeStonesFromSaturn]

Where do you live? I highly doubt this.

It is true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States Some public institutions do seem to have hate speech clauses, like say public universities, but there is no general laws against it.

What kind of person hates humanity? How could there be a single positive redeeming quality of such a belief? What does it serve? It's completely unjustified. It's technically pseudoscience, every time you pin them down, their beliefs about humanity are completely fallacious. A rational argument for misanthropy? Impossible! Through down the gauntlet here boys gives us your cult philosophy.

You're asking the wrong person, since I'm not a luddite, or a misanthrope.

Speak for yourself.

That's the only person I speak for.

 

[JadeStonesFromSaturn]

So what, are you suggesting he should go and commit suicide?

Why shouldn't people who advocate the extinction of mankind actually follow up with it themselves?

 

[Nosi]

I dunno, it doesn't seem to fit any traditional "hate speech" criteria, it just seems run of the mill misanthropism (Is that a word?) done in a "joke form" I suppose...

He probably humanizes (ironically enough) animals rather extremely, and is angry at the human race for treating them so badly, or whatever.

Either that, or he just puts too much value on the human abstraction of ecology. Possibly both?

Or perhaps he's a runaway Malthus enthusiast looking at the over six billion of us pinkish hairless monkeys with an industrial strength case of the horrors.

 

[Nosi]

How does calling people a piece of crap not fit "traditional hate speech"?



Misanthropy is defined as "generalized dislike, distrust, disgust, contempt or hatred of the human species or human nature."

In other words, the kind of person who engages in hate speech.

It's species directed, not race, sex, gender, or religion I think.

 

[JadeStonesFromSaturn]

Or perhaps he's a runaway Malthus enthusiast looking at the over six billion of us pinkish hairless monkeys with an industrial strength case of the horrors.

The horror!

 

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by lionking
None conceived during the football season.

No, that's a lie. Awaiting a brace of grandkids to ravish the planet.

So do you think it's okay to destroy all other life on the planet to make room for more and more and more people? (because that's the drift I'm getting here from the way you seem to be brandishing this about. I could be wrong, though. Or do you think there's a way to add more without destroying more of the planet's life? How would you do that -- since every place expansion goes, the environment in that area gets destroyed.) Civilization itself need not be unsustainable, but certain things we do with it, on the other hand...

If Lionking lives in an area that does "toilet to tap", a program that turns humans into living resources, they can use all the little living 'water bags' they can get!

 

[mike3]

As I have said so many times it's becoming boring, the biggest population problem the world is facing is the looming reduction we are facing in a few decades.

Why would it be *bad* if it were to reduce to some extent?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why would it be *bad* if it were to reduce to some extent?

Our social institutions aren't built to handle it (for example, the looming medicare/social security funding problems). It's going to create a demographic dominated by old people for perhaps the first time in human history, and there will be significant social stresses resulting from that. Not that these are insurmountable problems, but they are problems.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It's species directed, not race, sex, gender, or religion I think.

It's hate.

 

[TFian]

It's hate.

It's love!

 

[lionking]

Our social institutions aren't built to handle it (for example, the looming medicare/social security funding problems). It's going to create a demographic dominated by old people for perhaps the first time in human history, and there will be significant social stresses resulting from that. Not that these are insurmountable problems, but they are problems.

Exactly, and I ask people (again) to look at where Japan will be in a decade or two.

 

[Roboramma]

Depends on how you define "exploration".

Really? This company seems to be involved in oil exploration in the continental US.

So, under what definition of exploration has oil exploration ceased in the continental US?

 

[Roboramma]

As I have said so many times it's becoming boring, the biggest population problem the world is facing is the looming reduction we are facing in a few decades.

Sure, but its only "the biggest population problem" because it is going to reduce. If population were going to rise, if, for instance, we were losing the battle with education and development and the societal forces that tend to bring in lower birth rates, then we would have a much bigger problem with population growth. The fact that it looks like we won't have that problem is great, but it means we will have the problems of shifting demography.

That doesn't suggest that continued exponential population growth would be better. It simply suggests that either way there are problems that have to be dealt with, and in the real world the problems of shifting demography are the ones that we are actually faced with.

Of course, we are also faced with some of the problems (and benefits) of prior population growth. But I agree with you that those who look at those problems need to come to terms with the fact that those population trends are already shifting and the problems of the past are different from the problems of the future.

 

[lionking]

Sure, but its only "the biggest population problem" because it is going to reduce. If population were going to rise, if, for instance, we were losing the battle with education and development and the societal forces that tend to bring in lower birth rates, then we would have a much bigger problem with population growth. The fact that it looks like we won't have that problem is great, but it means we will have the problems of shifting demography.

That doesn't suggest that continued exponential population growth would be better. It simply suggests that either way there are problems that have to be dealt with, and in the real world the problems of shifting demography are the ones that we are actually faced with.

Of course, we are also faced with some of the problems (and benefits) of prior population growth. But I agree with you that those who look at those problems need to come to terms with the fact that those population trends are already shifting and the problems of the past are different from the problems of the future.

I have no argument with the points you make.

 

[JadeStonesFromSaturn]

What I find particularly humorous of the Neo Malthusians is that Malthus himself declared the "struggle" of overpopulation was a divine test from the Lord Almighty himself as a lesson of character to humanity. Funny how you never hear that bit from the "Modern" Malthusians....

Also the fact he held some rather well, despicable views, such as "poverty" being essentially to a stable population (while not submitting himself to such poverty, of course).

 

[lionking]

What I find particularly humorous of the Neo Malthusians is that Malthus himself declared the "struggle" of overpopulation was a divine test from the Lord Almighty himself as a lesson of character to humanity. Funny how you never hear that bit from the "Modern" Malthusians....

Also the fact he held some rather well, despicable views, such as "poverty" being essentially to a stable population (while not submitting himself to such poverty, of course).

Thanks for that. I've never delved deeply into Malthus because, well, he set a benchmark for wrongness.

I should clarify that I would be happier if the world population peaked earlier and at a lower level than it will, but you can't put the geni back in the bottle, short of some of the ridiculous proposals put forward by various deep, dark greenies, assorted druids and doom merchants.

 

[Roboramma]

I have no argument with the points you make.

thanks for that.

 

[Roboramma]

What I find particularly humorous of the Neo Malthusians is that Malthus himself declared the "struggle" of overpopulation was a divine test from the Lord Almighty himself as a lesson of character to humanity. Funny how you never hear that bit from the "Modern" Malthusians....

Also the fact he held some rather well, despicable views, such as "poverty" being essentially to a stable population (while not submitting himself to such poverty, of course).

Malthus could be the biggest ******* that ever lived, but it wouldn't change the validity (or lack thereof) of his arguments. He could have extended those arguments to the more erroneous conclusions that you can imagine (therefore the world was created for the purpose of making cheese!), but those conclusions also don't affect the argument that led to them.

Newton had plenty of strange beliefs, but that doesn't affect my view that what he said about the laws of motion was pretty smart.

Now, I think Malthus missed some possibilities when he looked at this issue. That birth rates may gradually decline (for various reasons) on their own, for instance, doesn't seem to be something that he considered. But that he was wrong is about population growth and starvation is something to argue on it's own merits, and not related to whatever other views he may have had.

 

[JadeStonesFromSaturn]

Malthus could be the biggest ******* that ever lived, but it wouldn't change the validity (or lack thereof) of his arguments. He could have extended those arguments to the more erroneous conclusions that you can imagine (therefore the world was created for the purpose of making cheese!), but those conclusions also don't affect the argument that led to them.

Newton had plenty of strange beliefs, but that doesn't affect my view that what he said about the laws of motion was pretty smart.

Now, I think Malthus missed some possibilities when he looked at this issue. That birth rates may gradually decline (for various reasons) on their own, for instance, doesn't seem to be something that he considered. But that he was wrong is about population growth and starvation is something to argue on it's own merits, and not related to whatever other views he may have had.

You make a good point, just like Newton believed in the "philosophers stone" (Am I right?), it doesn't make his conclusions on the laws of motion wrong.

But I still thought it was worth bringing up, as it can let one delve deeper into one's motivations for such a belief, especially if they're wrong beliefs. It's like the issues I brought up with TFian's hero/idol/whatever "The Archdruid". The fact he's a total new ager doesn't necessarily prove anything he says on energy, and future scarcity there of wrong per se, but if he is wrong, it can certainly lead to understand the motivations on why someone would promote such a factually wrong belief.

 

[mike3]

Our social institutions aren't built to handle it (for example, the looming medicare/social security funding problems). It's going to create a demographic dominated by old people for perhaps the first time in human history, and there will be significant social stresses resulting from that. Not that these are insurmountable problems, but they are problems.

So, a world-wide "pension bomb"?