Death

[Nezaros]

Death is a necessity. It controls population, an essential part of any biological community. First we had competition and disease. But as science improves we no longer need to fight over a scarce quantity of resources, and modern medicine gradually makes disease less and less prevalent. However, we still compete for resources, not for the purpose of survival, but for quality of life. We compete with each other for jobs, and jobs are needed for money, which is needed for food and living space and all the other things that once were limited.

But as science fights back the external factors, it causes to expand the internal factor. Humanity's greatest predator is now, and likely will forever remain, itself. Technology continually grants us more and more efficient methods of killing ourselves. I don't solely mean weapons and warfare, but also the side effects of a "civilized" lifestyle. Diseases which have been created unwittingly. Cancers arising from environmental carcinogens and cardiovascular diseases from our food consumption, as well as car accidents and the like. And of course, slightly overlapping with the aforementioned, the stresses of living in a structured society, which cause both murders and suicides, and, on a larger scale, instigate wars.

I am not saying that technology is bad in contributing to these deaths, nor am I saying that it is good, and that we ought to put more funding into medical research. But where the external influence of nature cannot work to control the human population, it works internally. Its power over our physiological health wanes, and now takes over our psychological health.

And this, I say, is a good thing. Population needs to be controlled; indeed, the very size of the human populace is a significant contributing factor to these stressors. We could very well stand to increase the death rate; such would only improve global happiness by lessening the competition for abstract resources such as jobs. Nature has the right of it. People need to die.

 

[Cognisant]

So if we achieve technological immortality, either by genetic alteration, regenerative procesures or simply the mechanisation of bodily functions, that to compensate death will become more acceptable, or rather the value of human lives will diminish?

Yeah, probably.

Although once we stop the biological clock's ticking the pressure to start a family will rapidly disappear, even now in many first world countries single child families are normal, childless couples who will never have children aren't uncommon (some couples simply get a dog) and y'know once upon a time teen pregnancy wasn't a problem, it was a given. So it would seem that if functional immortality became avalible tommorrow the world would rapidly shift to a long term model whereby people will be a lot more interested in increasing their personal wealth, power, social status, than starting families, which in the long-long term may result in a global population decline.

 

[Hawkeye]

It will turn into something like the film "In Time" (not a very good film) where longevity becomes the new currency.

 

[Thurlor]

@Nezaros

Would you be willing to give up your life for the good of humanity? If not, then you have no right to espouse such a system.

Besides, the basic premise of your op is flawed. For a through to y, z is necessary. Seems backwards.

 

[redbaron]

Would you be willing to give up your life for the good of humanity? If not, then you have no right to espouse such a system.

Anyone can espouse any system they want, regardless of their, 'willingness' to sacrifice for it.

 

[Thurlor]

@redbaron

Yes, one can if they want to be conceited and self-centred.

 

[GodOfOrder]

@Thurlor

The system that the OP describes is entirely undiscriminating. It has no bias, and is simply natural selection acting in a new manner. The OP does not claim to be exempt.

Besides, humanity, like all other organic life, has an inherent drive to reproduce in order to pass on its genes. But if we remove this need, by defeating death, then reproduction becomes unnecessary.

Also, as dark as any malthusian claim is, any limited resource that is important, insofar as it is limited, can only sustain a limited amount of people. This is a mathematical fact. So when faced with scarcity, some must die so that others may live. Those who are poorly adapted to their environment can not stand the competition and they die. Just as in nature, we fight to gain a niche in our society.

His premise is no where near backwards.

or to put it all another way

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwSKkKrUzUk&list=PLIQ9nKezXyNaq1OD6i5YtJPN5ymfbBXoX&index=2

 

[Thurlor]

@GodOfOrder

How does overcoming death remove the biological imperative to re-produce?

I may be able to support birth reduction policies but not a policy of eugenics.

Death cannot be a necessity of life as it comes after life. Life is a necessity of death.

Prove it is necessary for the world for us to lower population in such a drastic measure (increasing the death rate).

 

[GodOfOrder]

First, this system is an entirely passive thing. Nobody is engineering death, and this is not eugenics. It is operated by the passive hand of NATURAL SELECTION. The OP emphasizes the necessity of death in life, not the active irradiation of life.

Second, with that in mind, natural selection is fueled by competition for shared resources. So, if that competition is fierce, then life will be hard for many, because the resources will be spread thinner. Increased death rates mean less competition. This makes life much easier for those still living. Either resources become less scarce, and we can sustain more people, or resources continue to be taken up, and so people die. And, as stated in the OP, resources are scarce, and also highly diverse, many being intangible.

Finally, We are motivated to reproduce in order to pass on our genes, so that they may survive. Once reproduction is no longer a necessity for genetic survival, the need to reproduce becomes unnecessary. We will likely not be able to defeat our sex drive, but is is likely that we will see children as more of an obstacle than a benefit, and we have many ways of removing this.

 

[redbaron]

Anyway, back to relevant discussion.

What you say is already starting to happen. The cycle has begun, so to speak. Eventually the system that is the Earth will end up correcting itself, and the repercussions of environmental damage will be obvious (to whoever is alive at that point).

So there will eventually come a point where human civilization cannot be sustained in the ways that it is now. The increase in, 'death rate' will happen whether we like it or not.

Even if we change our ways as well, I'm not sure if we can find a way to sustain the sheer amount of people. In the sense that everything needs time to replenish and regrow...the reason our population has grown so much is partly because of agriculture - something that we simply can't do without. Ideally everyone would just live off the land, but I doubt that's even possible. We'd have to do away with living in large clusters of cities and towns, to be a lot more nomadic in nature.

Yet somehow I don't see it even possible to sustain numbers without agriculture...agriculture which is at least partly dependent on and partly responsible for a lot of the environmental damage that goes on.

...

I'm too tired to write coherently right now.

Addendum: Yawn. Get bent with all these inane semantic arguments. "EUGENICS IS WRONG AND THE OP VAGUELY INFERRED THE POSSIBILITY THAT HE MAY OR MAY NOT SUPPORT EUGENICS! I'D BETTER NOT LET THIS THREAD LEAD ANYWHERE INTERESTING!!!!!"

 

[Thurlor]

@GodOfOrder

Sorry if I'm seeming extremely negative.

You are making a case for a passive form of population reduction. Nezaros however is doing more than that.

We could very well stand to increase the death rate;

Is that passive?

Instead of everyone fighting for resources we should be working towards exploiting new resources. Sure, in a closed system like Earth there will always be 'supply issues'. That just means we need to expand our horizons.

 

[Duxwing]

Am I cleared hot to tear into the OP?

-Duxwing

 

[Nezaros]

Am I cleared hot to tear into the OP?

-Duxwing

You're welcome to attempt to refute my argument however you wish.

Instead of everyone fighting for resources we should be working towards exploiting new resources. Sure, in a closed system like Earth there will always be 'supply issues'. That just means we need to expand our horizons.

This will be a valid point when we know where and how to attain new resources.

Even if we change our ways as well, I'm not sure if we can find a way to sustain the sheer amount of people. In the sense that everything needs time to replenish and regrow...the reason our population has grown so much is partly because of agriculture - something that we simply can't do without. Ideally everyone would just live off the land, but I doubt that's even possible. We'd have to do away with living in large clusters of cities and towns, to be a lot more nomadic in nature.

Yet somehow I don't see it even possible to sustain numbers without agriculture...agriculture which is at least partly dependent on and partly responsible for a lot of the environmental damage that goes on.

Society has only been able to develop because we ceased to be nomadic creatures. Moving backwards for the sake of... I don't know, moral cleanliness? would be foolish. And you're right, agriculture is the sole reason we can sustain the numbers we do.

How does overcoming death remove the biological imperative to re-produce?

I may be able to support birth reduction policies but not a policy of eugenics.

Death cannot be a necessity of life as it comes after life. Life is a necessity of death.

Prove it is necessary for the world for us to lower population in such a drastic measure (increasing the death rate).

The biological need to reproduce stems from the biological need to self-preserve. But genetics doesn't anticipate a lack of population constraints, which is why disease and competition are necessary to keep numbers sustainable. When you remove those factors, the death rate plummets while the birth rate remains the same. So unless you think a species' purpose is to create a gray goo of its spawn, any decrease in death rates must be accompanied by some decrease in birth rates.

You talk about death as if it's unnatural. I don't know if you've noticed, but the overwhelming majority of all organisms which were at one point alive, are now dead. It's natural; in fact it's biologically mandated.


I also find it somewhat amusing how quickly it was assumed that I'm espousing eugenics (and how incredibly negative the reaction to that is) when I merely made the vague suggestion that something could be done. But for all those wondering, even though I personally would support a eugenics program (which is really nothing more than an artificial aid to natural selection) it would be far easier to implement passive population reduction; that is, remove the opposition to natural selection.

As it stands our society is so afraid of death that we will make any effort to keep people alive, even if it means prolonging their suffering. It interferes with the "circle of life." We all think that we ought to donate to the starving children in Africa, or the homeless in America, so that they might just live one more day. But what does that give us? It's another mouth to feed. Day after day after day. Are we improving their lives by feeding them the bare minimum necessary to not die? No, we're only prolonging their suffering. Except very rarely, at no point will they be able to support themselves. It's wasted resources. It's a black hole into which we're throwing things best used elsewhere. Interference with the natural order.

 

[Absurdity]

I quote this guy every chance I get on here:

What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides of the boat.

Just as inflation reduces the value of each unit of currency, so do population booms reduce the value of each life.

 

[Duxwing]

Death is a necessity. It controls population, an essential part of any biological community. First we had competition and disease. But as science improves we no longer need to fight over a scarce quantity of resources, and modern medicine gradually makes disease less and less prevalent. However, we still compete for resources, not for the purpose of survival, but for quality of life. We compete with each other for jobs, and jobs are needed for money, which is needed for food and living space and all the other things that once were limited.

A more general case idea would be: For a population whose size equals the carrying capacity of its habitat to be stable, its birth rate must equal its death rate.

Also, jobs and money are not scarce resources. To the contrary, an increase in population causes a proportional increase in the number of jobs because some number of the new people will start businesses and employ their peers. Although manufacturing will always require raw materials like copper, trees, and fish, the new information economy requires only electricity; the number of jobs will only be limited by the actual carrying capacity of the planet. Unfortunately, disability and the permanent instability of a market economy prevent total employment, no matter how few resources are used in the new businesses.

Nevertheless, I agree that economic competition resembles Darwinian competition. Greed is as strong as the reproductive drive; corporations mimic tribes; conquering a market reaps huge rewards; even business buzzwords evoke violent struggle. But the underlying forces of business competition, though once quite similar to those of Darwinian competition, have been so changed by the information age that considering the former and extension of the latter is no longer appropriate.

But as science fights back the external factors, it causes to expand the internal factor. Humanity's greatest predator is now, and likely will forever remain, itself. Technology continually grants us more and more efficient methods of killing ourselves. I don't solely mean weapons and warfare, but also the side effects of a "civilized" lifestyle. Diseases which have been created unwittingly. Cancers arising from environmental carcinogens and cardiovascular diseases from our food consumption, as well as car accidents and the like.

I agree: the endless march of science will increase the proportion of deaths caused by accidents relative to other causes.

And of course, slightly overlapping with the aforementioned, the stresses of living in a structured society, which cause both murders and suicides, and, on a larger scale, instigate wars.

To the contrary, violent crime is less frequent than ever before. I have not found any resources on suicide or war, though; yet one can scarcely imagine France and Britain going to war again. Indeed, the creation of NATO and the EU ended almost all war in Europe.

I am not saying that technology is bad in contributing to these deaths, nor am I saying that it is good, and that we ought to put more funding into medical research. But where the external influence of nature cannot work to control the human population, it works internally. Its power over our physiological health wanes, and now takes over our psychological health.

Are you saying that you want more medical research funding, or that you are making no statement about medical research funding?

And this, I say, is a good thing. Population needs to be controlled; indeed, the very size of the human populace is a significant contributing factor to these stressors. We could very well stand to increase the death rate; such would only improve global happiness by lessening the competition for abstract resources such as jobs. Nature has the right of it. People need to die.

As I have demonstrated above, jobs--especially information and service jobs--are not scarce resources. Moreover, human populations seem to 'know' how many children are needed for the next generation: the birth rate is low in developed countries. And better yet, biotechnology and power generation efficiency improvements seem to be just around the corner, allowing developing countries like India to comfortably carry their burgeoning populations. Nevertheless, I agree that allowing the population to become unstable would be disastrous for mankind and support universal sterilization with test-tube babies replacing the dead.

But hopefully the Singularity will arrive soon, rendering all of these questions moot as we upload our minds to the Internet.

-Duxwing

 

[redbaron]

Society has only been able to develop because we ceased to be nomadic creatures. Moving backwards for the sake of... I don't know, moral cleanliness? would be foolish. And you're right, agriculture is the sole reason we can sustain the numbers we do.

I don't really view it as moving backwards. We can still be technologically advanced, without all of the unnecessary expenses of the modern world. The population would have to be smaller, yet I would rather a small(er) population that is completely sustainable, than the world we have now where everyone is just pushing forward for money.

Industry is always trying to, 'improve' wherever it can. Providing things that people don't need. If they see a rural area that they can expand? Bulldoze a whole lot of land, kill thousands of native animals and build a shopping strip. Eventually, people will start to flock there - it's a relatively open land. There's hardly anyone there, just a small shopping strip and a school and of course there's ample space available.

That all changes quickly though as more and more people start to flock there. When it does McDonald's will plop a restaurant right into the hub of the community and at this point it won't really receive any real resistance - the shopping strip has already been built, and by now other fast food outlets have already been established, complete with a pizza shop named after something Italian sounding - with no Italians in sight.

At this point, the poorly educated rural community is pretty much fucked. Obesity levels rise and the relatively poor education available in rural areas contributes to the fact that no one really has any idea what the fuck they're being fed. Literally through the plethora of fast food outlets. Proverbially through politically-charged newspapers - playing on the wilful ignorance of the isolated population. In the end? We have all of this, 'progress' and nothing to show for it. Just more idiots being fed through the meat grinder of progress, paving the way for more men in suits to exploit collectively narrow-minded rural communities.

My point? I don't care if we, 'move backwards' from this type of cycle - if our attitudes shift towards using technology to improve educational and medical infrastructure for a smaller number of people, who are content to live off the land. This doesn't even mean we have to hunt and gather, if the population was smaller it would be perfectly feasible for there to be small-scale, renewable agriculture that could easily support the numbers of the population.

Anyway, won't happen any time soon. Progress will just continue until the damage to the Earth reaches a point where natural occurrences will start to erode the population's sustainability.

 

[Nezaros]

Also, jobs and money are not scarce resources. To the contrary, an increase in population causes a proportional increase in the number of jobs because some number of the new people will start businesses and employ their peers. Although manufacturing will always require raw materials like copper, trees, and fish, the new information economy requires only electricity; the number of jobs will only be limited by the actual carrying capacity of the planet. Unfortunately, disability and the permanent instability of a market economy prevent total employment, no matter how few resources are used in the new businesses.

An increase in population does cause an increase in jobs, but the relation is closer to logarithmic than linear. And the internet is only a valid area of work for certain groups; the poor generally don't have the skills to sustain themselves via occupations in technology, and it's their plight which is really the most pertinent.

Are you saying that you want more medical research funding, or that you are making no statement about medical research funding?

I was making no statement.

To the contrary, violent crime is less frequent than ever before. I have not found any resources on suicide or war, though; yet one can scarcely imagine France and Britain going to war again. Indeed, the creation of NATO and the EU ended almost all war in Europe.

I spoke of violence as a subset of the greater effects of an advancing civilization on mortality. But you're right, violence (death in general, really) has decreased as society has improved. But I also think you're misinterpreting my intent. I'm not saying that population growth necessarily leads to more deaths by any means, only a decreased quality of life. Yes, a larger population can expand outward, settle new areas, but there is only a finite quantity of livable space on our planet. At some point we will have nowhere else to go, and even before then people will complain of overcrowding. We still don't know for certain that large-scale extraterrestrial / extrasolar colonization is feasible.

 

[Duxwing]

An increase in population does cause an increase in jobs, but the relation is closer to logarithmic than linear. And the internet is only a valid area of work for certain groups; the poor generally don't have the skills to sustain themselves via occupations in technology, and it's their plight which is really the most pertinent.

Who are "the poor," and why can they not be brought into the technology and service fields?

I was making no statement.

Thanks for explaining.

I spoke of violence as a subset of the greater effects of an advancing civilization on mortality. But you're right, violence (death in general, really) has decreased as society has improved. But I also think you're misinterpreting my intent. I'm not saying that population growth necessarily leads to more deaths by any means, only a decreased quality of life. Yes, a larger population can expand outward, settle new areas, but there is only a finite quantity of livable space on our planet. At some point we will have nowhere else to go, and even before then people will complain of overcrowding. We still don't know for certain that large-scale extraterrestrial / extrasolar colonization is feasible.

While you're right that unchecked population growth could be disastrous, consider that birth rates are low in developed nations, checking overpopulation there; we may not need to worry about what you describe here once the entire world is developed and stable.

-Duxwing

 

[Nezaros]

Who are "the poor," and why can they not be brought into the technology and service fields?

I think if it was a feasible option for every unemployed person it would have happened by now.

While you're right that unchecked population growth could be disastrous, consider that birth rates are low in developed nations, checking overpopulation there; we may not need to worry about what you describe here once the entire world is developed and stable.

True. However, I think we've been getting sidetracked with the whole discussion. I'm not trying to argue specifically that population growth is bad and we ought to halt it; rather that death, however it comes, is a positive thing, as it clears room for new people. The advancement of technology has slowed the death rate a great deal, and yet we're still trying to find ways to combat death. An individual loss may be a tragedy, but many millions of dead over many years is a facilitator of social change, and more importantly, natural.

 

[Duxwing]

I think if it was a feasible option for every unemployed person it would have happened by now.

Disease, unstable markets, etc.; all of these contribute vastly to unemployment.

True. However, I think we've been getting sidetracked with the whole discussion. I'm not trying to argue specifically that population growth is bad and we ought to halt it; rather that death, however it comes, is a positive thing, as it clears room for new people. The advancement of technology has slowed the death rate a great deal, and yet we're still trying to find ways to combat death. An individual loss may be a tragedy, but many millions of dead over many years is a facilitator of social change, and more importantly, natural.

New people will not be necessary beyond a small number if we defeat death. And why must society remain unchanged in the face of longer-lived people? Finally, that which is natural is not inherently good (e.g., predation of humans).

-Duxwing

 

[GodOfOrder]

Can we use the black death as an example of the principle that death makes life better for the rest of us?

By the time the ordeal was over, labor was in hot demand, and wages went up because there was a shortage in the supply of workers (1/3 of europe died). Ultimately, people moved away from the old feudal system, and merchants started to become powerful. Soon we had a flourishing cultural center in Italy, and the renaissance brought about the modern age of thinking. All of these great things happened because mass death brought about social change through economic necessity, by opening up a huge gap of societal niches. In short, it gave us a lot of breathing room.

 

[Walking.are.the.Dead]

in response to the original post, i to have continually pondered this problem of over population in todays society, and the lack of dying that comes as a result of advanced medicine + technology.

You see it every year, the birth rate is larger than the death one, which means the world's population is continually increasing (and it seems faster and faster). I have actually had this same debate in my religion class one day where we were discussing this topic, and i simply stated that there needs to be some major event where a lot of people die, and in a sense restore balance in the world (only logical answer really, not that my religion teacher or class thought so, and i vaguely remember someone comparing me to Hitler --> totally inappropriate).

Anyway, there is only one logical solution to this worldwide problem ... zombie apocalypse! [ and thats all i have to say on this issue ]

 

[Duxwing]

in response to the original post, i to have continually pondered this problem of over population in todays society, and the lack of dying that comes as a result of advanced medicine + technology.

You see it every year, the birth rate is larger than the death one, which means the world's population is continually increasing (and it seems faster and faster). I have actually had this same debate in my religion class one day where we were discussing this topic, and i simply stated that there needs to be some major event where a lot of people die, and in a sense restore balance in the world (only logical answer really, not that my religion teacher or class thought so, and i vaguely remember someone comparing me to Hitler --> totally inappropriate).

Anyway, there is only one logical solution to this worldwide problem ... zombie apocalypse! [ and thats all i have to say on this issue ]

Globally, the birth rate exceeds the death rate, but in some countries--Italy, for example--the opposite is true. We may yet see a stable global population!

-Duxwing

 

[Etheri]

It will turn into something like the film "In Time" (not a very good film) where longevity becomes the new currency.

The film wasn't too bad. I mean, sure, completely holiwood storyline, but I certainly liked the dystopia. In fact, it was more representative of our current reality than people might want to believe.

Is that passive?

Instead of everyone fighting for resources we should be working towards exploiting new resources. Sure, in a closed system like Earth there will always be 'supply issues'. That just means we need to expand our horizons.

While I agree, the question leads to : Where does all this end? When is the balance between quality of life and number of lives we can sustain optimal?

This is further complicated by greed. Even if we nicely planned out we can have XX people on this planet, providing them with a decent quality of life each, there would be quite a few that'd do anything in their power to get more. Human nature at it's finest.

Eventually the question arrises : What's worse, death after living or not having lived at all. Think it through. Consider your stance on abortion and euthanasia. Which is more important, giving more people a chance at life or making sure whoever is born actually has a proper chance at living to their fullest potential?

Can we use the black death as an example of the principle that death makes life better for the rest of us?

By the time the ordeal was over, labor was in hot demand, and wages went up because there was a shortage in the supply of workers (1/3 of europe died). Ultimately, people moved away from the old feudal system, and merchants started to become powerful. Soon we had a flourishing cultural center in Italy, and the renaissance brought about the modern age of thinking. All of these great things happened because mass death brought about social change through economic necessity, by opening up a huge gap of societal niches. In short, it gave us a lot of breathing room.

I disagree with attributing italy's early renaissance completely to the plague. I do agree that death and destruction is very good for our economy. After each worldwar was a short period of economic growth and welfare. Early 1920's (germany doesn't count) and 1960's (soviets don't count) are a decent example.

Globally, the birth rate exceeds the death rate, but in some countries--Italy, for example--the opposite is true. We may yet see a stable global population!

-Duxwing

Stagnation can be an issue in itself. The current population is continuously getting older and there is less and less workforce. These problems can probably be technologically prevented to certain extent.

Edit :
I agree on death being an important factor within the circle of life (lion king, d'ohh.)
However, I don't really support eugenics (@Nazaros) as I have absolutely no way of saying who should and who shouldn't die. Should we impose a random generator? Feel free to come up with ideas.

I do however think that, to certain extent, we should atleast allow all abortion, euthanasia and worry about self-inflicted harm less. If people tend to be self-destructive, then that's tragic and to certain extent, they should be helped but these should not be the priority of our resources.

Unfortunately, in western societies, often more resources are spent in trying to keep suicidal or terminally ill people alive as long as possible than resources are spent trying to feed starving children.

 

[Duxwing]

Stagnation can be an issue in itself. The current population is continuously getting older and there is less and less workforce. These problems can probably be technologically prevented to certain extent.

The Baby Boomers will die off soon, but if technology advances quickly enough, then they can return to the workforce.

Edit :
I agree on death being an important factor within the circle of life (lion king, d'ohh.)
However, I don't really support eugenics (@Nazaros) as I have absolutely no way of saying who should and who shouldn't die. Should we impose a random generator? Feel free to come up with ideas.

I do however think that, to certain extent, we should atleast allow all abortion, euthanasia and worry about self-inflicted harm less. If people tend to be self-destructive, then that's tragic and to certain extent, they should be helped but these should not be the priority of our resources.

Unfortunately, in western societies, often more resources are spent in trying to keep suicidal or terminally ill people alive as long as possible than resources are spent trying to feed starving children.

But why not help all of them? The requisite resources are not that great. You also seem to be looking at the world as if it were already overpopulated without demonstrating that it is.

-Duxwing

 

[Etheri]

But why not help all of them? The requisite resources are not that great. You also seem to be looking at the world as if it were already overpopulated without demonstrating that it is.

-Duxwing

I do not need to show that it is. A point of saturation is inevitable, helping everyone comes to an end, now or later.

7 billion humans, i'd say there's a good case for overpopulation just in that number. Why the fuck would we need 7 billion uncooperative monkeys each doing their own things for their own gain.

Which is the point of overpopulation, when every bit of space is used optimally and everyone gets just enough food to be healty and live as long as possible? I know for a fact that we cannot sustain 7 billion people living my lifestyle without serious improvements in engineering and / or finding another planet. What about yours? Howmuch are you willing to give up, tone down so that we can have more people? Every additional person implies less other fauna and flora.

As always, the line of overpopulation is arbitrairy. I can easily state 7 billion is already too much.

 

[Duxwing]

I do not need to show that it is. A point of saturation is inevitable, helping everyone comes to an end, now or later.

And at the salutation point--or even before--the birth rate declines to equalize with the death rate. Italy is a good example.

7 billion humans, i'd say there's a good case for overpopulation just in that number. Why the fuck would we need 7 billion uncooperative monkeys each doing their own things for their own gain.

Hm, you sound kinda misanthropic.

Which is the point of overpopulation, when every bit of space is used optimally and everyone gets just enough food to be healty and live as long as possible? I know for a fact that we cannot sustain 7 billion people living my lifestyle without serious improvements in engineering and / or finding another planet. What about yours? Howmuch are you willing to give up, tone down so that we can have more people? Every additional person implies less other fauna and flora.

And why can't these events can't happen? Especially considering that some of the people involved might literally be inventing for their lives? :headscratch:

As always, the line of overpopulation is arbitrairy. I can easily state 7 billion is already too much.

OK, Let's call the number X.

-Duxwing

 

[Etheri]

And at the salutation point--or even before--the birth rate declines to equalize with the death rate. Italy is a good example.

The birth rate and welfare across the world is pretty correlated. There is indeed stagnation in population growth in most welfare areas in the world. Unfortunately, we cannot offer 7 billion people this quality of life. We have already crossed the saturation point of our current technological capacities if you want to compare to italian standards, which are in turn lower than american ones!

Hm, you sound kinda misanthropic.

Perhaps. Consider it realistic. I'm not stating i'm in favour of killing people to maintain equilibrium, I clearly stated I know no proper way to go about that. I'm merely stating there's too many people, already. It's not that I don't grant these people the chance at life, it's simply the realisation that there's a limit.

And why can't these events can't happen? Especially considering that some of the people involved might literally be inventing for their lives? :headscratch:

They can, but then number X merely increases. It never vanishes. You're always stuck in an equilibrium between resources and technology on one hand and the amount of people on the other. I say first solve the problems and be able to provide for everyone, then see if we have space for more. Be realistic.

You're saying just procreate, and when there's too many they'll either die off or we'll somehow fix the problem... Or we'll fuck up. Realise that ecologic changes and industrialisation are both parts in the already-happening overpopulation of the earth going nicely hand in hand. Without the fertilisers we use, we'd never be able to feed the entire world. There's so many of us we're having a noticable impact on the worldwide environment... Yet nobody dares state there's too many of us, we just have to solve the ecological problems, without fixing the underlying problem.

Ecological footprint is far from perfect but it shows my point well. You take the entire planet, you devide up the space and resources evenly. More humans, less space and resources. Right now, we're all living WAY above our standards. Probably everyone on this forum. You wish to grant these people a chance at life, yet none of us are giving up our quality of life. I say give everyone a good quality of life, even if that means there's less people on the planet. 7 billion or 1 billion, doesn't bother me one bit. If we limit our births we could easily evolve to these ideals without killing anyone.

 

[Duxwing]

The birth rate and welfare across the world is pretty correlated. There is indeed stagnation in population growth in most welfare areas in the world. Unfortunately, we cannot offer 7 billion people this quality of life. We have already crossed the saturation point of our current technological capacities if you want to compare to italian standards, which are in turn lower than american ones!

So welfare leads to lower population growth? Ok, and how is that not sustainable given that Italy's population is shrinking, not growing?

Perhaps. Consider it realistic.

As opposed to any other possibility which is therefore unrealistic?

I'm not stating i'm in favour of killing people to maintain equilibrium, I clearly stated I know no proper way to go about that. I'm merely stating there's too many people, already. It's not that I don't grant these people the chance at life, it's simply the realisation that there's a limit.

And we will not necessarily go past that limit, as demonstrated in Italy.

They can, but then number X merely increases. It never vanishes. You're always stuck in an equilibrium between resources and technology on one hand and the amount of people on the other. I say first solve the problems and be able to provide for everyone, then see if we have space for more.

As seen in Italy, the birth rate falls to acknowledge carrying capacity even at an above-poverty standard of living; moreover, a quick look at history indicates that increasing the standard of living in the US after the Great Depression decreased the birth rate, leading to the archetypical 2.3 child nuclear family rather than the sprawling brood of decades past becoming the norm.

Be realistic.

You're basically saying, "Agree with me".

You're saying just procreate, and when there's too many they'll either die off or we'll somehow fix the problem

Yeah.

... Or we'll fuck up. Realise that ecologic changes and industrialisation are both parts in the already-happening overpopulation of the earth going nicely hand in hand. Without the fertilisers we use, we'd never be able to feed the entire world. There's so many of us we're having a noticable impact on the worldwide environment... Yet nobody dares state there's too many of us, we just have to solve the ecological problems, without fixing the underlying problem.

So we'll save ourselves with closed-circuit, robotically tended, hydroponic farms upon the sun-scorched roofs of skyscrapers and in the stable air beneath the earth--or some other, equally wild invention--instead of just sitting here like idiots and dying of nitrogen poisoning.

Ecological footprint is far from perfect but it shows my point well. You take the entire planet, you devide up the space and resources evenly. More humans, less space and resources. Right now, we're all living WAY above our standards. Probably everyone on this forum. You wish to grant these people a chance at life, yet none of us are giving up our quality of life. I say give everyone a good quality of life, even if that means there's less people on the planet. 7 billion or 1 billion, doesn't bother me one bit. If we limit our births we could easily evolve to these ideals without killing anyone.

But who's to say that so many humans will come to be, and who's to say that more efficient ways of meeting our current needs can't be found? :Headscratch: The advance of technology is essential to imagining the future.

-Duxwing

 

[Etheri]

So welfare leads to lower population growth? Ok, and how is that not sustainable given that Italy's population is shrinking, not growing?

And we will not necessarily go past that limit, as demonstrated in Italy.

As seen in Italy, the birth rate falls to acknowledge carrying capacity even at an above-poverty standard of living; moreover, a quick look at history indicates that increasing the standard of living in the US after the Great Depression decreased the birth rate, leading to the archetypical 2.3 child nuclear family rather than the sprawling brood of decades past becoming the norm.

You said 'hey look it works in italy and some other places!', which I agreed with. Unfortunately, you completely ignored the fact that we're already past the point where we can offer the italian quality of life to the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet. You've acknowledged that you understand that less welfare leads to even more people. This in turn leads to less welfare. (unless technology / resources can outpace the population growth.) Guess what, we cannot offer the italian lifestyle to the world, and in turn these areas don't have stagnant demographics either.

We're past this ideal point of italy you're talking about on a global scale.
Italy has 60 million inhabitants. More than 10 times as many people on the planet suffer from malnourishment. But I suppose that's not italy's problem? If we could offer everyone on the planet an avarage italian life, by all means I'd agree we're not overpopulated. But we can't, not even close.

Until we actually make these technological advancements which are required and that you're talking about, we're past the saturation point on a global level. I'm sure italy is fine but that doesn't help the folks that can barely feed themselves, does it?

You're basically saying, "Agree with me".

You're extrapolating what is possible for the elite fraction of our planet onto the entire population of the world without taking into account that we currently do not have the technology or resources to do so.

So we'll save ourselves with closed-circuit, robotically tended, hydroponic farms upon the sun-scorched roofs of skyscrapers and in the stable air beneath the earth--or some other, equally wild invention--instead of just sitting here like idiots and dying of nitrogen poisoning.

And until then we'll let 10 to 50% of the worlds population live in poverty, because we've still not invented how to feed them... Or how to share for that matter.

But who's to say that so many humans will come to be, and who's to say that more efficient ways of meeting our current needs can't be found? :Headscratch: The advance of technology is essential to imagining the future.

-Duxwing

If there aren't so many humans, then we're under the limit and perfectly fine. Unfortunately, I believe we're past this optimal point already.

As to more efficient ways of meeting our current needs : it's called 'entropy'. It's this very cool phenomenon that makes it so that no matter how good our technology gets, there WILL be a limit. The number X of this limit and the quality of life is irrelevant. Thermodynamics pretty much states that all resources and energy is limited. On top of that, we could maybe offer everyone the lifestyle rich people had 100 years ago. They thought they had it quite well. Shall we just tone ourselves down to that for the sake of the rest of the world? We want more, too.

Lets simply go over some reasoning :

1) Resources are limited, and always will be. (first two laws of thermodynamics)
2) Resources have to be split over the population, more people implies less resources per person.

From simply these two lines, I can conclude that there is always a population limit, regardless of technology and ideology / regime.

Then comes what we have now : You state 7 billion people on the earth, currently, isn't too much. I say it is : we can provide all basic necessities for all 7 billion people, without a doubt, but we do not have the technology, infrastructure and systems in place. Instead, over 10% of the population barely gets food, and a select elite part of the population gets off with all the resources claiming there's plenty for everyone.

In the meantime, our technological advancements and attempts to feed everyone to their likings while gaining even more quality of life for ourselves are rapidly depleting our planet from these vital resources. (And i'm talking about a LOT more than oil).

Consider the utopia you described. Double the global population and share everything everyone has over two people. Now do the same again. And perhaps again. When do we stop? When do we realise that we're just adding more people for the sake of having more people?

/This post was way too long, but i'll be gone abroad tomorrow either way. If I'm unclear, you've got less than 12 hours to get me to clarify...

Ps. Yay, there's so many skyscrapers we can't even go out into a park and see the sun anymore. In fact, eventually there's so many humans that suntime is limitted by quota to give everyone their portion of vitamin D, and to make sure the plants keep growing so we can feed everyone. There's only so much sunlight, too. We better find some more planets soon

 

[Duxwing]

You said 'hey look it works in italy and some other places!', which I agreed with. Unfortunately, you completely ignored the fact that we're already past the point where we can offer the italian quality of life to the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet. You've acknowledged that you understand that less welfare leads to even more people. This in turn leads to less welfare. (unless technology / resources can outpace the population growth.) Guess what, we cannot offer the italian lifestyle to the world, and in turn these areas don't have stagnant demographics either.

Why are we necessarily past that point in terms of raw resources, and why can the technology that produces products not become more efficient, as it has in the past? And consider the alternative to finding a way to better the state of the impoverished: an even greater population growth.

We're past this ideal point of italy you're talking about on a global scale.
Italy has 60 million inhabitants. More than 10 times as many people on the planet suffer from malnourishment. But I suppose that's not italy's problem? If we could offer everyone on the planet an avarage italian life, by all means I'd agree we're not overpopulated. But we can't, not even close.

Most of those people suffer from malnourishment because they either live far from arable land, lack advanced farming technology, or farm inefficiently. The first problem can be solved through hydroponics, the second through sales, and the third through education. Also note that many of those people are also sick with all sorts of ills, like malaria.

Until we actually make these technological advancements which are required and that you're talking about, we're past the saturation point on a global level. I'm sure italy is fine but that doesn't help the folks that can barely feed themselves, does it?

By that logic, we have always been past the tipping point because people have been starving for want of adequate farming technology since people have existed. And please don't misunderstand: I want to help those people. The only way to do so, however, is to help them feed themselves.

You're extrapolating what is possible for the elite fraction of our planet onto the entire population of the world without taking into account that we currently do not have the technology or resources to do so.

You're assuming that the "elite fraction of the planet" is somehow specially endowed with additional resources that cannot otherwise be obtained. And why do you think that we don't, and why do you think that we won't?

And until then we'll let 10 to 50% of the worlds population live in poverty, because we've still not invented how to feed them... Or how to share for that matter.

To take what we have and spread it around only hurts us and makes then dependent on aid: Kenya's otherwise fertile and productive farms, for example, are choked by regular shipments of free grain from charities. In dire circumstances--floods, earthquakes, flash famines--I agree that we must send aid, but in the long term, the solution is trade. If Kenyans lack jobs, then by no means besides subsistence farming can they feed themselves and their families.

If there aren't so many humans, then we're under the limit and perfectly fine. Unfortunately, I believe we're past this optimal point already.

But you've yet to ground your belief in fact.

As to more efficient ways of meeting our current needs : it's called 'entropy'. It's this very cool phenomenon that makes it so that no matter how good our technology gets, there WILL be a limit. The number X of this limit and the quality of life is irrelevant. Thermodynamics pretty much states that all resources and energy is limited. On top of that, we could maybe offer everyone the lifestyle rich people had 100 years ago. They thought they had it quite well. Shall we just tone ourselves down to that for the sake of the rest of the world? We want more, too.

The principle to which you refer is the conservation of energy, but yes, at extreme time scales, resources are limited--even with recycling and fusion. The sun will eventually envelop Earth, too, but our little blue ball will be fine and dandy for another three billion years. Moreover, if we really need some more iridium, for example, then we'll send a robot to an asteroid and drag the space-boulder back for processing.

Lets simply go over some reasoning :

1) Resources are limited, and always will be. (first two laws of thermodynamics)
2) Resources have to be split over the population, more people implies less resources per person.

From simply these two lines, I can conclude that there is always a population limit, regardless of technology and ideology / regime.

But these problems are only relevant at time scales so extreme that by the time we need a snack for want of the aforementioned iridium, we very well may have faster than light travel, strong AI, or some other, as of yet unimagined leap of technology that will render these questions irrelevant.

Then comes what we have now : You state 7 billion people on the earth, currently, isn't too much. I say it is : we can provide all basic necessities for all 7 billion people, without a doubt, but we do not have the technology, infrastructure and systems in place. Instead, over 10% of the population barely gets food, and a select elite part of the population gets off with all the resources claiming there's plenty for everyone.

If we haven't the technology, infrastructure, and systems in place, then let's put them in place so that everyone else can eat, too.

In the meantime, our technological advancements and attempts to feed everyone to their likings while gaining even more quality of life for ourselves are rapidly depleting our planet from these vital resources. (And i'm talking about a LOT more than oil).

What natural resources are being depleted, and why must we continue using them in particular instead of more plentiful ones?

Consider the utopia you described. Double the global population and share everything everyone has over two people. Now do the same again. And perhaps again. When do we stop? When do we realise that we're just adding more people for the sake of having more people?

Your scenario would not happen because, as I have pointed out again and again and as you agreed earlier, increasing the standard of living decreases the birth rate.

/This post was way too long, but i'll be gone abroad tomorrow either way. If I'm unclear, you've got less than 12 hours to get me to clarify...

I appear to be belated.

Ps. Yay, there's so many skyscrapers we can't even go out into a park and see the sun anymore. In fact, eventually there's so many humans that suntime is limitted by quota to give everyone their portion of vitamin D, and to make sure the plants keep growing so we can feed everyone. There's only so much sunlight, too. We better find some more planets soon

How are you feeling? You seem upset.

-Duxwing

 

[The Introvert]

In reference solely to OP:

Civilization has and always will function the same way. Take away environmental niches, replace it with a work niche. Money is the common resource, similar to available resources found in nature.

Death is simply the least common denominator.