[ExI] Fwd: Scientists remain PC

[Dagon Gmail]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

Dagon wrote (From: Dagon Gmail Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 7:16 AM)

    It goes smack in the face of the typical 20/30 year old soon-to-be
breeder that
    his or her lifestyle is causing, by a small increment, the destruction
of the planet.

This is a *highly* disputed pronouncement, not something to be taken as
matter-of-fact. Julian Simon and many others have adduced a good deal of
evidence that population growth, other things being equal, is good for
society, good for economies, and good for humanity in general. In some
countries, where the population growth is pronounced, such as the United
States, there is clearly a great shortage of people, considering how many
opportunities evidently exist for those able to emigrate there.

> I cannot see it any differently from what I have stated. Humanity has
overbred its carrying capacity and I do not see any evidence otherwise in my
daily life or whenever I listen to the experts. In an ideal world, where all
humans are adequately educated, well-fed, where everyone has access to
humane medical treatments and necessities, and where people can lead a life
without senseless mind-numbing labour, competition or abuse, and where we
have access to abundant energy, food and natural resources, sure, onwards to
a Trillion humans !! But the assumption we can go on as the singularity is
already a done deal, economies are religiously reliable and we have rock
solid guarantees in the law we aren't terrorized by alienated minorities or
exploited by dehumanized powerblocks - that's naive. I agree, the US can
probably grow to 350 million. But India, the Middle East, Africa, large
parts of Asia, even south America ...  it is all a disaster waiting to
happen. As a painful example, no less then a few months ago I was mocked
when I suggested we could have the first signs of a die-off when oil prices
would increase over 100$. Right now people are in fact dying, because of
this scarcity problem, and politicians in rich countries are already
wringing their hands at the "desperation divident" - lots of new desperate
and eager labour entering the global marketplace driving down wages. If oil
costs 500$ per barrel, they'll be dragging the shriveled up corpses from
apartments in YOUR street.

> The question is - do we (you and me) live in a society that is rich
because we are smart and well-organized, or are we this affluent and spoiled
because we had ourselves a big party on the oil inheritance. I am personally
pretty sure, and I can saturate you in meaningless URL's, amazon bestsellers
and youtube vids attesting to the idea that our western opulence, progress
as well as the almost infernal population explosion in large parts of the
third world was primarily caused not by some manifest destiny of progress,
but rather by wallowing heedlessly in oil calories. The bad news is we will
be faced with at least several decades of scarcity before we can entertain
any hope of nanotechnology, fusion, spacedbased solar, He3, biotechnology
revolutions, life extension, the second coming, a robotics revolution or the
resplended AI providing a "lucky bastard" dividend to save our collective
asses. We are so screwed it hurts.

> In an ideal world europe would assimilate 500+ million enthusiastic
mixed-demographic people from the middle east, the US would welcome the same
from the overcrowded slums of southamerica and asia and we be all be dancing
in happy circles wearing flowers. That is not going to happen. Resource
depletion, largely oil-based, come with energy prices of 250 per barrel, and
very soon too. Humanity will fail miserably at the cooperative model and
revert to zero sum strategies across the board if that happens. If you lived
in senegal would you have faith in populist western european politicians? If
I lived in, say, Iran, sure I'd want to own a nuke, and real fast too. Can
Iran trust a senile sociopath like McCain?

    Even then, countries with biggest problems tend to be countries
    with religious extremism, authoritarianism and rather inadequate
    democracies.

Yeah, that's the other hand, all right. But their problems are not
so much population growth per se, but retarded economies due
to the world-wide unequal distribution of capitalism.

> I agree that many countries haven't been pulling their fair share and have
been underachievers in the global marketplace. But to be honest, isn't that
their own choice? Who the hell are we, smug obese westerners, to dictate to
argentine or saudi arabia or syria or venezuela they are supposed to fit in
with the program? Whose program?  I sure as hell object if the same
countries are making choices (or don't make choices) that will cause fall
out in my opart of the world (immigration) but last time I checked their way
of doing business is none of yours. If Saudi Arabia wants to live in a
sterile mix of oil-infused population boom, selective modernism and
sociopathic medievalism it's none of your business. If they suffer food
riots, they can always behead their surplus population for stealing.

    It just doesn't sink in that the more people you have, the less each
    individual is worth.

Perhaps you intend that your following remarks qualify that, but
I don't quite see how.  That's an outrageous statement, on its
face!  Do you mean to suggest that John Adams was worth less
than Cicero because there were so many more people in John Adams'
time?  Or, in terms of locality, I would be worth much more if I
moved to a tiny hamlet in a small country on an underpopulated
continent?

> Absolutely. Humans, a priori, are worth as much as society says they are.
It's an economic calculation, incorporating how much is invested in the
individual, class, ethnicity, education, poperty, health, insurances and
several other factors. If there are more people in a specific area, and if
investment of value per individual is less, society will sure as hell act on
that calculation. Try getting police help with a dispute if you are
unemployed, without a permanent address, even in western democracies. You'd
almost think you were living in an apartheid regime. Frankly I regard it as
shocking you do not see this as anything else than common sense. I would
wish it different, but it isn't.
> A large factor in this equasion IS population density. Larger populations
are inefficient, producing less, largely because access to the commons of
raw materials (or space) is curtailed by competition. Wishing upon the
blessings of increased progress, efficiency, education and civilization will
help, but only so much. Families in tokyo pay three generations to own a
home smaller than the one I live in, on my own. A good portion of egyptian
society is so damn inefficient and undersupplied that the slightest decrease
in flow of goods causes the bottom 20% to not receive their allotment of
free bread - and that translates instantly in knee-jerk police crackdowns,
riots and a flaring up of religious extremism. One would almost think they
were bloody communists.

    Having an excess of cheap, desperate individuals means cheap
    labour, which is in the interest of those in power, or those with
    money. This is a conundrum that can not be resolved with current
    science and current democracies.

You seem to believe that the number of jobs is somehow fixed,
and that this fixed quantity of jobs will just cause the "excess"
of "cheap, desperate individuals" to have to share them among
them, bid down each others' wages, and live off charity.  It's not
so! Under the right circumstances, more people means more
jobs, as the larger number of individuals discover new creative
niches within an economy. (It's true that too few countries have
"the right circumstances", but we should be pushing for more
freedom, democracy, rule of law, protection of private property,
and all the rest of those things that make it possible.)

> The right circumstances being a limitless access to energy, space,
materials and time. But that era has ended. The world is becoming governed
by cuthroat competition, and the idea that politicians do not use
machiavellan tactics to cultivate their national competitiveness - including
shoving people in the incinerators, "metaphorically" is naive. I am sorry if
I sound cynical, but I do not trust my fellow humans anymore after 8 years
of neocons.

    Nobody will address it, except for a few with vision, and they
    will be scorned in return.

:-)   Thus the fate of all of us who seem to be ahead of our
times, e.g., us cryonicists.

> Personally cryonic suspension as an idea doesn't work for me. If given a
choice, and me having a million or two to spare, sure, hurl my corpse in the
nitrogen. I'd opt for freezing my body when old, rich and on the verge of
death. But right now the required investment is as far removed from me as
the far side of the moon.

    My single best argument we need immortality treatments in
    the 7/11 NOW. Once people have to face consequences
    they'll change their tune really fast. I see no other way to resolve
many of our problems.

I might agree.  But your opening remarks will just be echoed
by those who think that there are too many people, and it's
high time some of the old ones died off.

> In an ideal world, etc. I have nothing but contempt for the current one,
so if it goes away, *one way or another* I won't miss it, or be there to
miss it. I am only idealist when I can afford to.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080806/babc21fe/attachment.html>