Overpopulation, serious political and economical problems

[Evo]

The fact is that population growth is increasing at ~ 90 million a year. That's net over deaths. That is a problem.

Yes, developed countries have been educated and are more responsible, we need to get the same education and acccess to birth control to developing nations. However the Catholic church went on a rampage towards the UN's attempt at this. http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabbag/overpopulation.asp

 

[russ_watters]

The fact is that population growth is [...] ~ 90 million a year. That's net over deaths. That is a problem.

You had a couple of extra words in that sentence, Evo...fixed.

 

[Max Faust]

we need to get the same education and acccess to birth control to developing nations

Well, I'd tend to think that if you are poor, your (selfish) chances of reaching a comfortable old age will increase the more people you manufacture who are likely to stay loyal to you in a direct and no-nonsense, lofty way. If you can trust your government (in its many permutations) to take care of business, you'll be likely to forego all the rigmarole of raising a bunch of screaming, crazy kids - i.e. "pay the price now for reaping the rewards later". In other words, I think that the more organised and functioning the society-at-large, the fewer kids you will want to manufacture.

 

[brainstorm]

Well, I'd tend to think that if you are poor, your (selfish) chances of reaching a comfortable old age will increase the more people you manufacture who are likely to stay loyal to you in a direct and no-nonsense, lofty way. If you can trust your government (in its many permutations) to take care of business, you'll be likely to forego all the rigmarole of raising a bunch of screaming, crazy kids - i.e. "pay the price now for reaping the rewards later". In other words, I think that the more organised and functioning the society-at-large, the fewer kids you will want to manufacture.

What about people who don't have kids to get slaves but who believe in the biblical value of "going forth and multiplying?" Presumably such people see life as a gift, which they want to multiply and give to others.

People who fear population growth and people who see multiplication as acceptance of divine providence seem to be diametrically opposed to me. A passage from the koran actually comes to mind which forbids the killing of wives and children as a response to poverty/scarcity. Basically it says not to kill starving/suffering people because God will provide for them.

The Catholic church also continues to discourage birth control, abortion, euthanasia, divorce, etc. doesn't it? Theologically it does make sense that these are all life-negative activities. The pope actually prayed for those caught up in a "cult of death." I wonder if population-control ideology is part of what he was praying for salvation for.

 

[Max Faust]

What about people who don't have kids to get slaves but who believe in the biblical value of "going forth and multiplying?"

I don't believe in the existence of such people.
I do however believe in the existence of psychotic delusions.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't believe in the existence of such people.

So let
A = people who don't have kids to get slaves
A' = A intersect C
B = people who believe in "going forth and multiplying"
B' = B intersect C
C = people who have children
D = A intersect B
D' = D intersect C

You're saying that D, or at least D', is empty. This strikes me as unlikely. Do you think that A (resp., A') or B (resp., B') is empty, or just that they happen to have a null intersection?

 

[Max Faust]

OK, I'm going to cry now. Mathematics makes me feel dyslexic.

 

[brainstorm]

I don't believe in the existence of such people.
I do however believe in the existence of psychotic delusions.

It's funny you would mention psychoses. I actually have considered studying macro-social imagery such as that constructed by population/demography as causing psychoses. I believe a point can be reached in macro-analysis where conclusions derived at the macro level become experiencable as observables in everyday life. Some people would probably argue that if the science is valid, the experience of its conclusions are not psychoses, but I think the issue is in regards to the link between analysis and observation/experience. When analysis results in observations or experiences, this is the reverse of inductive theorizing and a bizarre perversion of deduction.

Come to think of it, I believe it's called "tautology." This was Karl Popper's main critique of Marxist social science, I think. He said that once you learn to visualize class-conflict, every current event would appear as a conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

I wonder if population demography has the same effect by making all current events seem like the result of overcrowding and overpopulation? Could this be a form of psychosis?

 

[brainstorm]

So let
A = people who don't have kids to get slaves
A' = A intersect C
B = people who believe in "going forth and multiplying"
B' = B intersect C
C = people who have children
D = A intersect B
D' = D intersect C

You're saying that D, or at least D', is empty. This strikes me as unlikely. Do you think that A (resp., A') or B (resp., B') is empty, or just that they happen to have a null intersection?

Amazing encoding but I'm afraid I'm too lazy to decode it. If you type this out in uncoded language, I will read it.

 

[Max Faust]

studying macro-social imagery such as that constructed by population/demography as causing psychoses

All I have is field work which is based in the "dirty" process of handling reality. I have close-up mouth stenches and dislocated eyes of people wildly out of control, gunshot wounds, and the smell of blood. Not very scientific, in the mathematical and orderly sense, but it leaves an impression.

 

[curiousphoton]

Amazing encoding but I'm afraid I'm too lazy to decode it. If you type this out in uncoded language, I will read it.

Draw 3 interesting circles and fill them in accordingly. It might take you 2 minutes if you're struggling to draw a circle. You will see the light!

 

[Q_Goest]

What do you mean superficially? Its a fact the population growth is low or none existent for much of the developed world. If it were not for immigration the population would be shrinking even in the US. Why this is true can be debated, not that it is.

I've always read that in the third world people have large families a) provide for the family and the tribe, and b) because women have little or no rights. Develop those countries, raise people out of poverty, and we observe these problems tend to go away.

I'm not suggesting your observation is correct or incorrect, but I wonder where the research is to back it up. It seems like it might be so obvious that we don't need to back up statements like this but I bet there's plenty of research out there that examines exactly what you're suggesting. I'd bet there are social scientists looking to quantify how population growth depends on the level of development, including how to define 'development' and what factors are involved and why. I suspect there is a wealth of knowledge that can put this correlation into perspective. I'd be curious to see if anyone can quote some of that research.

 

[Evo]

I'm not suggesting your observation is correct or incorrect, but I wonder where the research is to back it up. It seems like it might be so obvious that we don't need to back up statements like this but I bet there's plenty of research out there that examines exactly what you're suggesting. I'd bet there are social scientists looking to quantify how population growth depends on the level of development, including how to define 'development' and what factors are involved and why. I suspect there is a wealth of knowledge that can put this correlation into perspective. I'd be curious to see if anyone can quote some of that research.

This is huge, but it's "Everything you wanted to know about research on overpopulation and it's effects".

http://atlas.aaas.org/index.php?part=2

 

[mheslep]

This is huge, but it's "Everything you wanted to know about research on overpopulation and it's effects".

http://atlas.aaas.org/index.php?part=2

Interesting. Everyone knows that US energy consumption per capita is high, but I also see the US produces far more primary energy (1447 mmtoe) than any other area of the world, including _all_ of the Middle East combined. (1265 mmtoe).
http://atlas.aaas.org/natres/energy_popups.php?p=prodcon&res=high

 

[Evo]

Interesting. Everyone knows that US energy consumption per capita is high, but I also see the US produces far more primary energy (1447 mmtoe) than any other area of the world, including _all_ of the Middle East combined. (1265 mmtoe).
http://atlas.aaas.org/natres/energy_popups.php?p=prodcon&res=high

Whatever, that's off topic. We're discussing overpopulation taking over and destroying land and water.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Amazing encoding but I'm afraid I'm too lazy to decode it. If you type this out in uncoded language, I will read it.

Max, brainstorm: I had no intention of confusing, but just the opposite: trying to learn precisely what was intended by the earlier post.

There are two things Max mentioned: people who don't have kids to get slaves, and people who believe in "going forth and multiplying. There are four natural groups for people to fall into:
1. people who don't have kids to get slaves who believe in "going forth and multiplying.
2. people who do have kids to get slaves who believe in "going forth and multiplying.
3. people who don't have kids to get slaves who don't believe in "going forth and multiplying.
4. people who do have kids to get slaves who don't believe in "going forth and multiplying.

Of these, which do you feel contain at least one person?

 

[Q_Goest]

This is huge, but it's "Everything you wanted to know about research on overpopulation and it's effects".

http://atlas.aaas.org/index.php?part=2

Thanks Evo. I read through the article and I agree overpopulation is one of, if not the biggest issue this world faces. mheslep's contention however, is one I think shouldn't be passed up.

The rate of population growth for the world is slowing. Population (not rate) is actually shrinking in many developed countries, and if not for immigration would be shrinking in many more. So the solution seems to be to encourage development.

I think that's an unusually important fact if it's true. How true it is I'm not sure, but the point seems obvious. I seriously doubt we can turn around and reduce the impact humans have on the Earth. So one solution is to reduce the population, but the question is how.

Projections show a continued rise in population to a level of somewhere between 9 billion and 15 billion, or there abouts, followed by a decline in world population. This trend is illustrated in the graph you provided in post #11 (where'd you get that one anyway?). Is the drop in fertility rate because people will die due to starvation, disease, wars and other issues? Or will population growth control itself as more countries become 'developed'? I've spent some time looking around the net for a decent answer but can't seem to find one. The Wikipedia article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation" seems to support mheslep's contention that growth is in the undeveloped countries:

- The world population is currently growing by approximately 74 million people per year. Current United Nations predictions estimate that the world population will reach 9.2 billion around 2050, assuming a decrease in average fertility rate from 2.5 down to 2.0.[14][15]
- Almost all growth will take place in the less developed regions, where today’s 5.3 billion population of underdeveloped countries is expected to increase to 7.8 billion in 2050. By contrast, the population of the more developed regions will remain mostly unchanged, at 1.2 billion. An exception is the United States population, which is expected to increase 44% from 305 million in 2008 to 439 million in 2050.[16]

They also provide a graph showing this correlation:

Why is there a negative correlation between development and population growth as shown in this graph. Why should there be lower birth rates in richer countries when compared to poorer countries? And should we consider GDP per capita a good measure of how "developed" a country is? Or is this an issue of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence" ?

I suspect there's a good answer to what it means for a country to be developed, why those countries experience lower fertility rates and what the best solution is to getting the population growth under control. The answer may be as simple as mheslep suggests, that we need to bring the world's population up to the same standards as the 'developed' countries. But even if that were to happen, I'm not convinced that will solve the crisis. The answer I think is out there, but I don't see anyone digging the right answer out of the existing body of research.

 

[brainstorm]

All I have is field work which is based in the "dirty" process of handling reality. I have close-up mouth stenches and dislocated eyes of people wildly out of control, gunshot wounds, and the smell of blood. Not very scientific, in the mathematical and orderly sense, but it leaves an impression.

How do you attribute these visceral experiences to overpopulation or other macro-social imagery without a "(macro)sociological imagination?"

Maybe the problems you witnessed were due to some other factor(s), such as economics, infrastructure, culture, etc.

 

[brainstorm]

Max, brainstorm: I had no intention of confusing, but just the opposite: trying to learn precisely what was intended by the earlier post.

There are two things Max mentioned: people who don't have kids to get slaves, and people who believe in "going forth and multiplying. There are four natural groups for people to fall into:
1. people who don't have kids to get slaves who believe in "going forth and multiplying.
2. people who do have kids to get slaves who believe in "going forth and multiplying.
3. people who don't have kids to get slaves who don't believe in "going forth and multiplying.
4. people who do have kids to get slaves who don't believe in "going forth and multiplying.

Of these, which do you feel contain at least one person?

I logically opposed the two reasons for having kids, although you're right that people could hold both ideologies simultaneously.

My point about "going forth and multiplying," was meant to explain the ideology of having kids that you're simply giving life to new humans, preparing them best you can for adult life, and setting them free to live their own lives for themselves, by their own choice, hoping that they don't end up enslaved by someone else's authority.

Other people do have kids as slaves, though, I think. They basically use their emotional influence over their kids to manipulate things they want from the kids. I doubt many people are so loveless that they only exploit their kids for their own interest, but some may truly not care about or even perceive the interest of their children as independent human beings with a life of their own.

 

[Galteeth]

I don't feel that the answer to world overpopulation is to spread people until every liveable spot on the Earth is packed beyond the ability to sustain them.

I know some people say that sooner or later the issue will resolve itself, massive wars, famine, plagues. Is that how we want to resolve things?

We need to start educating everyone to limit the number of chidren they have.

I strongly agree with you on this. I think most of the ecological problems we have are only catastrophic in terms of continuous population growth. Rather then the goal of lowering living standards, encouraging people to reproduce responsibly seems like a much more reasonable strategy.

I have made the conscious decision not to ever have children. Besides the overpopulation issue, I carry the HLA B27 gene, which has had enormous negative consequences for me personally, and would result in a high probability of such problems for my offspring or their future offspring.

It amazes me that people, even when they learn of my genetic problem, still urge me to have children! Many of these people are the same ones who cry out for government control to reduce consumption in the name of ecology.

The one thing I wonder though: Practically, asking people to lower their standard of living seems like a tough sell. For most people, asking them not to reproduce would be an even tougher sell. Over the long run, of course (the very long run) if such a cultural idea took route, only people who could not be swayed not to reproduce would be left. But luckily we are not dealing with that large a time scale.

I have personally accepted this idea quite readily, although I never found the notion of having children appealing. I wonder if the strong inclination to reproduce (which I don't understand on a subjective personal level, beyond the sexual) is simply too strong to be educated away.

You are a mother. What do you think? Could you have been persuaded not to have children by rational sustainability arguments?

 

[russ_watters]

You are a mother. What do you think? Could you have been persuaded not to have children by rational sustainability arguments?

Yes! ...though "persuaded" is too strong of a word.

There are some dots here that haven't been adequately connected. mhslep's simple solution is also a passive one, which is why it is so powerful. It doesn't require coercion, only education.

-We know population growth is lower in developed regions than undeveloped.
-We know population growth is lower in Europe than in the US (even if you subtract-out immigration). In fact, it is negative in a lot of countries in Europe.
-We know that the US has a larger lower class, due in part to immigration continously replacing a lot of people who move up.
-We know that the first fact doesn't just apply globally, it applies in the US: the poor and less educated have more kids.

Now for the connecting of the dots. The rich/educated don't tend to think about population growth as a reason for not having kids. All they do that the poor don't is be responsible and plan. And the cause/effect relationship works both ways: having a child too young causes poverty. So the solution, with its own built-in feedback mechanism, is to encourage reproductive responsibility in children. The result will be fewer single mothers, higher high school graduation rates, which means a more educated, responsible and productive workforce. And people choosing to have kids later in life - planned - means less population growth.

I believe that girls should be given, at a very young age, implantable birth control. Right now, we play a sill game, arguing against reality and betting on the responsibility of teen-agers, all the while encouraging irresponsibility with birth control. A logical disconnect between birth control education and abstinence education can exist: they are not mutually exclusive. You get a flu shot - does that mean you don't need to wash your hands anymore? Of course not. It helps to use long-term/implantable birth control: by making the birth control implantable, you take away the immediacy of the need. Norplant lasts five years. If you implant it at age 13, you aren't saying your 13 year old should have sex, you are saying that sometime in the next 5 years, she probably will - and when she does, she'll be protected. And you can still teach abstinence in your schools till your heart's content.

 

[brainstorm]

Rather then the goal of lowering living standards, encouraging people to reproduce responsibly seems like a much more reasonable strategy.

There is another view that as material wealth increases, people become more decadent and lethargic, which is not good for their health or resource conservation. Population decline in wealthy, developed regions is being used as a basis for validating some immigration, while controlling it tightly. The result is that there is greater demand for visa permits that supply of sponsors. This in turn means that sponsors can cherry pick people on the basis of personal interests such as getting a household servant, an attractive accessory for outings, etc.

I am in favor of freeer migration, or at least more democratic control over who migrates and why. The more migration control their is, legitimated as population management, the more cherry-picking goes on - bordering on human trafficking.

The one thing I wonder though: Practically, asking people to lower their standard of living seems like a tough sell. For most people, asking them not to reproduce would be an even tougher sell. Over the long run, of course (the very long run) if such a cultural idea took route, only people who could not be swayed not to reproduce would be left. But luckily we are not dealing with that large a time scale.

You can educate people about both choices, but ultimately the choice to have children is an inalienable right. It is built into your body (most of the time) and political interventions that interfere with a fetus once conceived are ethically problematic (unless it's your body that's pregnant, in which case watch out for pressure to choose one way or the other!)

Asking people to lower their standard of living may be a tough sell, but it's nothing new. Economic rationality has always stimulated people to conserve and consume less than they might like to. People limit their consumption in myriad ways for the benefit of their health and their bottom-line. The corollary of economic resource conservation is that there existing production levels can sustain a larger number of consumers.

It's not so much that people HAVE to lower their standard of living to support more people. It's that increasing consumption is a road to obesity (bodily and in terms of lifestyle), so conservation at the level of personal consumption actually promotes the ability to consume sustainably for a greater number of people.

Have you also noticed that lifestyles associated with higher classes and standards of living are typically more conservative and measured in terms of consumption, with a greater emphasis on management and preservation of resources and economic saving rather than spending? This is a by-product of the invisible hand of capitalism. More wealth stimulates more savings, which stimulates more conservative lifestyles that allow for more happiness with less spending. Of course, there's this bridge people have to cross of liberal consumption and enjoying their newfound wealth when it is the result of social mobility from poverty and desperation.

Now for the connecting of the dots. The rich/educated don't tend to think about population growth as a reason for not having kids. All they do that the poor don't is be responsible and plan. And the cause/effect relationship works both ways: having a child too young causes poverty. So the solution, with its own built-in feedback mechanism, is to encourage reproductive responsibility in children. The result will be fewer single mothers, higher high school graduation rates, which means a more educated, responsible and productive workforce. And people choosing to have kids later in life - planned - means less population growth.

Another way to look at this is that having kids is a means to pass on cultural knowledge and wisdom you have acquired and developed in your life. Having kids young is logical if you're poor and unemployed or underemployed, because children are the most precious wealth of all and you already own the mine/factory to produce them. Obviously this is a materialist view of children, which decreases as people get their materialism under control. At that point, having kids becomes a means of preserving cultural wealth and extending your ability to contribute positively to the world by passing on your competencies and wisdom to younger people (such as your own children).

You can pass on culture by becoming a teacher too, but having children goes one step further in that you're giving someone the ability to identify with you as their true parent. I suppose this can also be done through adoption, but I always find it a little sad that people have to give up their kids for adoption because of social-economic circumstances. It makes me question why there wasn't a means for them to combine work with parenthood - unless of course they decided that they just really didn't want to be a parent and this would have negative effects on the child to stay with them. I'm sure people must regret it at some point when/if they do realize the value of having kids.

 

[mheslep]

Yes! ...though "persuaded" is too strong of a word.

There are some dots here that haven't been adequately connected. mhslep's simple solution is also a passive one, which is why it is so powerful. It doesn't require coercion, only education...

Yes, though I'd add wealth or some economic system that makes a modicum of wealth widely available. Probably the two - education and a minimum standard of living - most always go together. If, however, a woman happens somehow into the unlikely position of being be well educated but having no recourse other than living in a hut, cooking from wood fires and is otherwise reliant on male muscle mass for protection and means, then I expect her main role in the society is still going to be one of baby maker in chief for the tribe.

 

[russ_watters]

Without evidence, I'm not willing to accept that a society can be highly educated and still be poor. I don't think that has ever happened and the course of human development seems to imply it can't be that way.

 

[mheslep]

Without evidence, I'm not willing to accept that a society can be highly educated and still be poor. I don't think that has ever happened and the course of human development seems to imply it can't be that way.

I agree in that I can't think any such cases, but neither can I prove it can't be the case, thus I include standard of living along with education.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Is anyone reading this book? I am thinking about getting it

The Coming Population Crash: and Our Planet's Surprising Future
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0807085839/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[brainstorm]

Without evidence, I'm not willing to accept that a society can be highly educated and still be poor. I don't think that has ever happened and the course of human development seems to imply it can't be that way.

Wealth and poverty are culturally relative to a large extent. There are certain material bases for wealth, such as good nutrition, good protection from the elements, access to good health and longevity. But beyond that, wealth is largely symbolic, defined by status-attribution and class/caste hierarchies.

The division of people into classes brings with it differentiation in culture and skills such that certain people get prescribed some forms of work and others are free to do more desirable work or even simply consume a leisurely lifestyle.

Education and technological advances make it possible to accomplish more with less labor, and therefore they make it possible for larger numbers of people to enjoy more free time and consume more non-essential goods and service, but that also requires more labor, which in turn requires a larger class of workers/servants.

So, yes, education does reduce poverty but in doing so it also increases the need for a larger class of servants and workers to provide the wealth and status that is enjoyed by those with the privilege to do so. Reduction of poverty is the dream of wealth without servitude and hard labor but it is not ultimately possible unless the privileged give up the privilege of having other people perform the labor needed to supply them with the myriad goods and services that makes their wealthy lifestyle what it is.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Well, no need to worry given the way education is going. I believe it's currently around the, "You got a perty mouth boy!" level. :yech:

 

[brainstorm]

Well, no need to worry given the way education is going. I believe it's currently around the, "You got a perty mouth boy!" level. :yech:

I disagree. I think the media developments of the 20th century vastly increased basic cultural literacy, with most people gaining a wide variety of vicarious experiences through TV, radio, and print. Now, internet has added new dimensions. What you are referring to, I think, is the tendency for people to be overwhelmed by their cultural knowledge and retract into traditional expressions of culture to seek protection from the cosmopolitanism they have discovered to feel threatening. Education and culture can have peculiar effects.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I disagree. I think the media developments of the 20th century vastly increased basic cultural literacy, with most people gaining a wide variety of vicarious experiences through TV, radio, and print. Now, internet has added new dimensions. What you are referring to, I think, is the tendency for people to be overwhelmed by their cultural knowledge and retract into traditional expressions of culture to seek protection from the cosmopolitanism they have discovered to feel threatening. Education and culture can have peculiar effects.

I was being sarcastic as hell, to be fair (quoting Deliverene is a hint there). I see this as a little bit of knowledge being dangerous, and confusing. For all that people can be educated, sometimes they dont' want it. The result however, is the same: willfull ignorance and misinformation: Texas publishing creationism alongside evolution.

Hell, you have to know how and where to look online or that vast library is spread so thin that you may be fatally misinformed by the time you get to a real source. Look at PF! Look at how many cranks and genuinely confused people come through here. People are RETREATING from the world because it isn't what they thought it was, or wanted it to be. There are too many people, and the bell curve meeans that we're getting a majority in the MIDDLE.

Some people, are too stupid to learn, or want to learn. Others are too afraid of what they learn, or the need to keep an open yet skeptical mind. This is with 6 billion on the planet... how the hell are we going to teach and mange 9 billion?! Yes, more people have access to more information than ever before, and more misinformation, manipulation, and fear. Given how we behave as societies, I'm not seeing a vast improvemnt. We're literally choking ourselves to death through breeding, and we don't have the wit or will to stop it. What more needs to be said in the end?

EDIT: A question: In a world where every person didn't have the ability to "Weigh in" on saaaaay, fetal stem cell research... would the research have been crippled for so long? How much does public outrage and kneejerk reaction, prejudice and fear allow them to halt progress that has USUALLY been free of public scrutiny? What is the effect of say... Deepak Chopra vs. Stephen Hawking? People have access to both, but one is essentially hacking into their heads for cash, and the other is a hero to some, a curiosity to others, but to most is "The dude in the chair with the robot voice and the black hole book, right?"

 

[brainstorm]

I was being sarcastic as hell, to be fair (quoting Deliverene is a hint there). I see this as a little bit of knowledge being dangerous, and confusing. For all that people can be educated, sometimes they dont' want it. The result however, is the same: willfull ignorance and misinformation: Texas publishing creationism alongside evolution.

Hell, you have to know how and where to look online or that vast library is spread so thin that you may be fatally misinformed by the time you get to a real source. Look at PF! Look at how many cranks and genuinely confused people come through here. People are RETREATING from the world because it isn't what they thought it was, or wanted it to be. There are too many people, and the bell curve meeans that we're getting a majority in the MIDDLE.

Some people, are too stupid to learn, or want to learn. Others are too afraid of what they learn, or the need to keep an open yet skeptical mind. This is with 6 billion on the planet... how the hell are we going to teach and mange 9 billion?! Yes, more people have access to more information than ever before, and more misinformation, manipulation, and fear. Given how we behave as societies, I'm not seeing a vast improvemnt. We're literally choking ourselves to death through breeding, and we don't have the wit or will to stop it. What more needs to be said in the end?

EDIT: A question: In a world where every person didn't have the ability to "Weigh in" on saaaaay, fetal stem cell research... would the research have been crippled for so long? How much does public outrage and kneejerk reaction, prejudice and fear allow them to halt progress that has USUALLY been free of public scrutiny? What is the effect of say... Deepak Chopra vs. Stephen Hawking? People have access to both, but one is essentially hacking into their heads for cash, and the other is a hero to some, a curiosity to others, but to most is "The dude in the chair with the robot voice and the black hole book, right?"

Your pain and fear come across in your post. Your mind will probably never let you do it, but you should try to refocus on the micro level instead of relating everything that upsets or disappoints you to the idea of global population, which does not exist simultaneously in time or space except to the extent that they connect through translocal media and economic trade networks. If anyone is "choking through breeding," it is not the people concerned with overpopulation, who are usually choking through anxiety of imagined threats from a relatively isolated position of privilege far away from "the breeders."

Fetal stem cell research is treasured in popular media for a reason. It combines those two most sensational of topics relevant to everyone alive: birth and death. It is the myth of vampirism: eternal youth through consumption of others' blood. It is a point of battle between Christians and atheists insofar as Christians accept suffering and death as sources of spiritual liberation and atheists reject spiritual liberation as a cheap substitute for alleviation of suffering and death.

One thing you should understand is that there are people who aren't stupid, who still see the ideologies of anti-reproduction and stem-cell rejuvenation as terrors. They believe that having children and families is good and they distrust medical technologies that are related to derivation from fetal tissue. Maybe you would have more success in promoting your point of view if you stepped outside of it for a little while and looked at it through the eyes of others - and while you're at it try giving some thought to why religion and family are appealing. You might avoid getting brainwashed and even come up with some cultural reforms that support your point of view without totally alienating them in theirs.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Your pain and fear come across in your post. Your mind will probably never let you do it, but you should try to refocus on the micro level instead of relating everything that upsets or disappoints you to the idea of global population, which does not exist simultaneously in time or space except to the extent that they connect through translocal media and economic trade networks. If anyone is "choking through breeding," it is not the people concerned with overpopulation, who are usually choking through anxiety of imagined threats from a relatively isolated position of privilege far away from "the breeders."

Fetal stem cell research is treasured in popular media for a reason. It combines those two most sensational of topics relevant to everyone alive: birth and death. It is the myth of vampirism: eternal youth through consumption of others' blood. It is a point of battle between Christians and atheists insofar as Christians accept suffering and death as sources of spiritual liberation and atheists reject spiritual liberation as a cheap substitute for alleviation of suffering and death.

One thing you should understand is that there are people who aren't stupid, who still see the ideologies of anti-reproduction and stem-cell rejuvenation as terrors. They believe that having children and families is good and they distrust medical technologies that are related to derivation from fetal tissue. Maybe you would have more success in promoting your point of view if you stepped outside of it for a little while and looked at it through the eyes of others - and while you're at it try giving some thought to why religion and family are appealing. You might avoid getting brainwashed and even come up with some cultural reforms that support your point of view without totally alienating them in theirs.

You are right about the pain and fear brainstorm, and usually I do just what you describe. Sometimes however, it's a little difficult to keep perspective in these matters, and accept the lack of control intrinsic in the human condition. I've met people who are willing to discuss these matters reasonably (you're clearly such a person), but they are few and far between.

It's difficult to be aware of both micro and macro suffering, when you genuinely feel for people, and other animals. Part of the problem is that these issues have become so polarized that many people don't even want to consider that there isn't a clear moral answer. I want to live in the privelage you describe... I don't want to lose what I have, even as I recognize that what I have is more than I need, and wasteful.

In the end, I refuse to accept that there is one right answer to this... I would rather be afraid and in pain than, as you say, be brainwashed (even by myself). After so many years of trying to communicate with people through "brute force" (not violence), subtlety, and direct honesty... it's tiring. Sometimes, I don't live up to my own standards, and being human it's very hard not to demonize faceless masses which, in the end, I'm a part of.

I used to have exactly the issues you describe: As a kid I was a devout atheist, for no reason. I still don't believe in anything, but I no longer have faith in nothing either. I'm agnostic, and skeptical, and too often I'm harsh. I don't believe that morality is absolute, but I wish to act morally. I live with contradiction and dissonance to avoid clinging to an extreme as so many do, for comfort and a sense of belonging.

Often, this allows me to be diplomatic, and see points of view that I would otherwise never consider. Sometimes, I don't bear so well with the load and I return to older patterns of behaviour... my comfort in essence... in a feeling of SOME kind of certainty. I recognize, even as I'm doing it, how pointless it is to simply lash out at people. That said, I'm only human too, and while I'm not a child or a teen, I'm not a wise old man either. I'm just trying to get by in a world that makes very little sense, filled with people who fundamentally confuse me with their hatreds and prejudice. The fact that there are so many good and interesting people (bright AND dim) who have something to offer is a comfort, and a scourge.

On a less personal and perhaps more relevant note, although I felt it worth aknowledging your insight, overpopulation truly is killing us. I don't mean to say that wer're about to run out of space to put people, or food. Hell, there is fairly decent technology being tested now which will scale with population growth to produce food, recover phosphorus from waste, etc. That said, we're wiping out species of plant animal and other so quickly we can't keep track of the loss. One of our most basic drives is survival and reproduction, and to take that from someone is monstrous. The alternative is universal public awareness of the problem... and I just cannot imagine that happening.

What I CAN imagine, is that fear you talked about being VERY real in some regions. If you need water, it doesn't matter if desalination plants exist if you depend on a river which is polluted, or divererted, or "overshared". Wars are fought over this, from the individual level onwards to nations. More people also means more hosts for lethal disease, or more people at a ground-zero for an earthquake, or volcano, or any other of a hundred natual disasters. This means that we need to respond to these people's plight, or leave them to die or be homeless, or simply suffer.

Yes, we could take a radical turn towards some kind of enlightened self-interest, but I don't think that the world is that "flat" (to quote Thomas Friedman) yet. Finally... these people want good lives, and they can say just how well people are living, and how they got that money and power. How do you tell people that their aspirations are out of reach (for most), but for no better reason than luck of the draw and expect peace?

Culture isn't universal, it's different everywhere you go. How you reform such a thing, for so many is hard to imagine. How do you steer people in the face of politicians and clever businessmen/women who use fear as a goad? How do you convince people who are your equal in their humanity that your culture is superior or necessary? How do you know that what you're doing then, isn't simple tyranny?

Finally, why is a family and religion comforting...
I see the two as very different, but connected in at least two points; a religion IS an extended family, just like being a firefighter or a soldier or a Tea-Partier or a Mason. It's a way to belong to people who (presumably) share your cultural values, and perhaps a similar upbringing. It's a way to sequester oneself from the reality that we're so spoiled for choice it can be paralytic. Family can do the same things, but it's also a continuation of one's genetic line, and an expectation of stablity in an unstable world. Both provide real comfort for people who believe in them, and frankly it's the nature of life to procreate. It's satisfying to eat, or sleep, and it's satisfying to fall in love, and form a (hopefully) lasting union with someone.

People are social animals, who want to feel connected to other people, and sharing what are perceived as core beliefs is deeply comforting. The comfort is real, but it stems from an illusion. If you have experienced enough of life, and are able to access information through libraries (brick & mortar and online) it is hard to accept those comforting illusions. People lose faith in their government, their churches/temples, and their spouses/lovers. Then you're left with a shell which is no longer a comfort, but a hinderence to clear thought. If you enter a relationship with the understanding of what you're gettng, and offering... it's better than flitting from fantasy to fantasy.

The downside is that... it all wears you down, and we all have buttons. For me, people hurting each other, and animals for the sake of survival, ideology, greed, desperation, and sometimes sociopathy... is my button. It's unfortunate that some of the most destructive people are least able to appreciate the damage they cause (W. Bush for instance), and then people who support them can be equally difficult to reach. Yes, there are great people in the world, and it's worth living for them, and for the sake of life itself. That doesn't make me immune from losing my cool out of sheer frusteration accumulated over years of seeing people DECIDE (whether they're aware or not) to coose a set view, and not leave it. I've got a friend who's dying because of his faith, and I don't mean that figuratively. I'm not going to get into details, but to attack their faith and convince them to live would be to attack a central part of who he is. It's not possible, without breaking the man... so he's going to die, slowly and painfully because he needed comfort and certainty more than he wants to open his mind to other possibilities. He's not stupid, but he's still killing himself in the end.

I understand him, and I understand why he's doing this. I know he WANTS to live, but I also know that he doesn't want to live under some circumstances; for me, that's a Persitant Vegitative State, for him, it's a transplant. I honestly understand him, and it just hurts me more. So... sometimes I don't handle it as well as I should, but I never claimed to be a saint.

 

[brainstorm]

From your post, you sound like a very deeply thoughtful person who is caught between skepticism in many things and strong conviction and uncritical assumptions in others. I think your honesty and concern are strengths no matter how much I may disagree with you on certain ideas and attitudes. I could respond in length to so many things from your post but I'm just going to choose one paragraph:

The downside is that... it all wears you down, and we all have buttons. For me, people hurting each other, and animals for the sake of survival, ideology, greed, desperation, and sometimes sociopathy... is my button. It's unfortunate that some of the most destructive people are least able to appreciate the damage they cause (W. Bush for instance), and then people who support them can be equally difficult to reach. Yes, there are great people in the world, and it's worth living for them, and for the sake of life itself. That doesn't make me immune from losing my cool out of sheer frusteration accumulated over years of seeing people DECIDE (whether they're aware or not) to coose a set view, and not leave it.

I can just tell you that overpopulation concerns were something I was not able to reflect on as a damaging ideology for a long time because I was not aware that it was an ideology at all. People who are in no direct danger still react to the imagery of overpopulation as if it were a direct threat. To me this is a type of macro-obsession where people get overwhelmed with interpreting the details of their everyday experiences, often because of the analytical complexity they interpolate into them. As a result they come to desire simplicity and peace of mind, but they can't distinguish simplicity of mind from simplicity of material/social environment and so they blame the world they perceive and the "masses" of people for their feeling of being overwhelmed by them. As you said, there are cultural and resource fixes to prevent most if not all the problems blamed on "overpopulation" but it's harder to see that there are also cognitive fixes for the problem of being overwhelmed by globalism and its discontents.

Part of your frustration, I think, is caused by your feeling that you have to carry the weight of the world in all its complexity. It may help you to realize that every individual, yourself included, is the center of a relatively limited subset of global humanity. The irony of that, however, is that the amount of information you receive at your node contains everything necessary to generate the feeling of being bombarded by the global everything that is accessible to your mind through media, analytical interpolation of personal experiences, etc. You're mind's ability to synthesize and make connections between knowledge from diverse sources is what produces the effect that you experience of "choking on population." It is not a material problem but a subjective one. It's like when people are exposed to excessive amounts of propaganda of espionage and begin to suspect everyone of being a spy. I'm not saying that you're particularly insane, because it is a common condition, but I think it is a condition of common insanity.

I think it would help you to realize your position of relative security and stability as not being directly or even indirectly threatened. How does the saying go, "nothing to fear but fear itself." Then, if you still want to study and address global, local, or glocal problems, go ahead, but try to be more critical about identifying how much of the problem is perceived by you because of media and how much is direct experience. Also try to become conscious of how your direct experiences are colored by interpolation of knowledge derived from media. Then do some thought experiments to examine how you might interpolate your everyday experiences differently if you thought about them differently because you had been exposed to different media texts or otherwise. I'm not saying that you should erase your interpolative RAM drive completely - just be more mindful of how it works and how its possible to be tricked into interpreting immediate events according to mediated frameworks. To give an extreme example, think of people who panicked during the War of the Worlds broadcast in which Martians were supposedly invading Earth. If someone had simply questioned the media with reference to direct experience, they would have questioned that anyone was invading, much less Martians. Then there are the people who see a UFO and think its secret military activity or alien beings. It's just a UFO because it's unidentified and flying; interpolating it beyond that is speculative.

I hope you don't consider this advice insulting. I'm really not trying to say you're crazy; just that when people AREN'T crazy, they are often the most susceptible to interpolating legitimate media imagery into their immediate reality in a way that conflates direct reality with mediated reality.

 

[Frame Dragger]

From your post, you sound like a very deeply thoughtful person who is caught between skepticism in many things and strong conviction and uncritical assumptions in others. I think your honesty and concern are strengths no matter how much I may disagree with you on certain ideas and attitudes. I could respond in length to so many things from your post but I'm just going to choose one paragraph:



I can just tell you that overpopulation concerns were something I was not able to reflect on as a damaging ideology for a long time because I was not aware that it was an ideology at all. People who are in no direct danger still react to the imagery of overpopulation as if it were a direct threat. To me this is a type of macro-obsession where people get overwhelmed with interpreting the details of their everyday experiences, often because of the analytical complexity they interpolate into them. As a result they come to desire simplicity and peace of mind, but they can't distinguish simplicity of mind from simplicity of material/social environment and so they blame the world they perceive and the "masses" of people for their feeling of being overwhelmed by them. As you said, there are cultural and resource fixes to prevent most if not all the problems blamed on "overpopulation" but it's harder to see that there are also cognitive fixes for the problem of being overwhelmed by globalism and its discontents.

Part of your frustration, I think, is caused by your feeling that you have to carry the weight of the world in all its complexity. It may help you to realize that every individual, yourself included, is the center of a relatively limited subset of global humanity. The irony of that, however, is that the amount of information you receive at your node contains everything necessary to generate the feeling of being bombarded by the global everything that is accessible to your mind through media, analytical interpolation of personal experiences, etc. You're mind's ability to synthesize and make connections between knowledge from diverse sources is what produces the effect that you experience of "choking on population." It is not a material problem but a subjective one. It's like when people are exposed to excessive amounts of propaganda of espionage and begin to suspect everyone of being a spy. I'm not saying that you're particularly insane, because it is a common condition, but I think it is a condition of common insanity.

I think it would help you to realize your position of relative security and stability as not being directly or even indirectly threatened. How does the saying go, "nothing to fear but fear itself." Then, if you still want to study and address global, local, or glocal problems, go ahead, but try to be more critical about identifying how much of the problem is perceived by you because of media and how much is direct experience. Also try to become conscious of how your direct experiences are colored by interpolation of knowledge derived from media. Then do some thought experiments to examine how you might interpolate your everyday experiences differently if you thought about them differently because you had been exposed to different media texts or otherwise. I'm not saying that you should erase your interpolative RAM drive completely - just be more mindful of how it works and how its possible to be tricked into interpreting immediate events according to mediated frameworks. To give an extreme example, think of people who panicked during the War of the Worlds broadcast in which Martians were supposedly invading Earth. If someone had simply questioned the media with reference to direct experience, they would have questioned that anyone was invading, much less Martians. Then there are the people who see a UFO and think its secret military activity or alien beings. It's just a UFO because it's unidentified and flying; interpolating it beyond that is speculative.

I hope you don't consider this advice insulting. I'm really not trying to say you're crazy; just that when people AREN'T crazy, they are often the most susceptible to interpolating legitimate media imagery into their immediate reality in a way that conflates direct reality with mediated reality.

I never consider good advice, given clearly and with no malice to be insulting. I also know enough to be aware that I'm not insane, but perhaps "traumatized" would be a valid description. You're right, and I already am painfully aware that I can only control those things which do. It's been a long time since I thought that facing a (real or perceived) grim reality was anything but destructive. In short, I take "Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes also into you." (Friedrich Nietzsche) VERY seriously.

As for the notion of Overpopulation as an ideology, the problem is that it's both a local reality for some, and a kind of basic panic unrelated to reality. There is little that is as difficult as separating a frightening reality from a terrifying mass-fantasy. I will say this: outside of a discussion on the matter, I don't concern myself with overpopulation, global warming/cooling/etc... or any of the other myriad issues over which my control is limited to living my life.

As for my personal position in life being threatened, you're absolutely right, but I've also traveled a great deal, and seen the other extremes. For the record, I'm not talking about a jaunt to Cancun when I was 21 (which I didn't do anyway), but Guatemala in the early 90's after (yet another) mini-pogrom. I've seen how closely people in relative comfort live to people with (real example) a woman dying on the street from syphilis (third stage), and that was not bad by some comparisons I've also seen. Unfortunately I saw much of this when I was young, and those things make an impression for a lifetime, regardless of how much reason one applies to them.

The kicker is... I have compassion. It's not just a matter of selfishly wanting what I have, but also empathy for people I've seen, slat-ribbed dogs I gave my food to, etc... and that doesn't go away. In short, this is why I tend NOT to watch news, and get my information directly... well... it's also pure crap now, and designed to induce fear. As you say however, short of a several stiff courses of ECT on "high" there is no erasing even portions of the old drive.

As for the rest, we're each burdened with what complexity we can grasp and, as you so rightly said, interpolate, interpret, predict, guess, and fear. As for fearing fear itself, that is good, but there are other things to fear: the manner of your death and those you care for, the fear in some other people which is not tempered by reason OR compassion, people who profit (in every way) from fear, the loss of freedom for yourself and others... etc.

Frankly, I've long since recognized that the media uses fear as a simple goad to stay connected to more media! That said, I'm only human, and sometimes the reality is grim too, even if it isn't apocalyptic. I'm much more sad than I am afraid, and some of that is simple: Take Haiti for instance: Why did that earthquake kill so many? There are of course, a number of reasons, but the biggest is: There are a LOT of people in a SMALL area. See earthquakes in China, or here. Yes, it's still a matter of scale, but they are real people with families and friends.

Now, does this mean I watched coverage of it? No, hell no. Does it mean that I found it impossible to shut away knowledge of what that kind of trauma does to people? No again. Consider then, how frightening it is to realize just how VERY local one's reach is, barring extreme success or donation of TIME as well as money. I'm not that selfless either, because I DO like my life.

That said... we are causing a mass extinction of other species, and while that is not unnatural, it's no less grim. We may very well manage to kill ourselves as our growing population reasonably aspires to have such luxuries as... a low infant mortality rate, some clean water, and maybe a bit less Malaria. So... skepticism, and conviction, but uncritical?... I don't think so. I do sometimes fail to meet by own expectations and make broad generalizations that are clearly untrue (people are stupid, being an example from this thread), but I'm aware of that, even as an old defensive reflex activates.

It is hard not to homogenize people who want to enforce their views of the world on you, or to demonize them. Motivations have many commonalities (M.I.C.E. for example), but they are still fundamentally individual. One cannot reason with a "mass", and of course, that is a defense in and of itself. If I "can't" than I don't "have to". I fear people like me, who grew up too quickly for no better reason than their own heads, but who lack "honesty and concern". I fear people who are so deeply ideological that they are unwilling or unable to consider other views.

Above all I fear the people who use that fear as a lever to move whole populations, and I fear myself for being someone who could do that as well. That brings me back to Nietzsche... I don't believe that you can wield fear as a tool without becoming afraid and insular, anymore than you can lie constantly and trust others. Overpopulation is very relative, but one way or another I fear the human and natural response to the reality or perception of it.

THAT said... I'm not ruled by fear, but I'm aware of the lessons of history. Nobody is easier to manipulate than someone who is terrified, and no one is more beloved than someone who delivers you from that same fear. A larger population + Information tech = Power. Power that isn't good or bad, but just is. Reasonable people respect and fear power that dwarfes them. Remember in what contexts that talk of fearing fear has been used... they are not happy ones.

In the end, it's mostly sadness for others, and empathy which I try to keep on "low", but is nonetheless, present... which I experience. The flipside of that, is anger, which I also try to control. The natural middle which the mind flees to, is generalization. Is it any wonder that people who were already primed with fear, became terrified by WoTW? I wouldn't be in the streets in that situation (big "S" Skepticism)... I wouldn't be afraid of martians, I would be TERRIFIED of the people who DID react. I think the application of that to modern situations is also applicable.

There is nothing to fear, but the people who are ruled by it, and those who rule with it. Remember what Voltaire said? "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you committ atrocities." I'm not afraid of someone with brown skin and a beard blowing me out of the sky... I'm afraid of the people who sent them, and mostly of the people on my end of things who divert resources fighting what are mostly phantoms. We're fighting terrorists by terrifying our populace unreasonably? Well, it's good for some business, but it's doing real damage to how people view the world.

So, I suspect that, as you say, we probably have deep philosophical and practical disagreements, but for what it's worth, I wish you had been there to give me this advice about 20 years ago. I'm not insulted in the slightest, and your intent is clearly beneficent. Just in case I've given you the impression that this represents the totality of who I am, let me reassure you that it is only in the fairly limited context of intellectual discussions. At any other time, I simply recognize that I'm human, with a human's scope and ability to effect events locally or globally. Mostly I concern myself with friends, family, and animals.

 

[mheslep]

Mark Steyn, author of a book on immigration and the clash of civilizations, interview http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=MjE5OTdmOTc2N2IzZWI0NmI1Y2FjZDVlNTEzYzJmYTU=" .
Some of the claims I found striking:

• Birthrate of ethnic Europeans: 1.3
• States like Germany, Japan have upside down family trees: four grandparents, two parents (children of grandparents), one child.
• Birthrate of Moslem immigrants to Europe (rough estimate): 3.5
• 40% of German female university graduates are childless.