[ExI] Underpopulation, not Overpopulation

Wed Apr 8 21:21:22 UTC 2009

2009/4/7 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>

> Dagon Gmail wrote:
>
>  >    The decline demographic numbers is a prime cause of the
>> >    economic malaise affecting the west.
>> >    ---Lee
>>
>> And I call that counter-productive if not completely dangerous
>>
> > bunk. I say that if one person uses x material resources,
>
>> energy at a certain standard of living, 100 persons will use
>>
> > far more than 100x in resources.
>
> You would have a *chance* to be right (though I would still
> suspect not) if technology were not constantly improving.
> Mass numbers assist technological breakthroughs because
> of the higher numbers of geniuses and others who contribute
> mightily to the advances.

I agree. But damn, I can make this ideal of progress look a little shaky by
waving
the Microsoft example around. I will give that a euphemism of your choice,
but rest
assured I don't like the given that despite technological leaps and bounds
(we are
both healthier, more longlived, better educated, richer, more affluent, than
kings
a few centuries ago. It can even be argued we have more servants, with
automation
and petrol-based industry) the world has these glaring blobs of suckage and
tar
pit. And that is in the rich places.

I am angry about the ghettoficaion of the third world. Very angry. I see
precious
little improvement there and I hope I am wrong in seeing the first signs of
(what I cynically would term) the auschwitzization of the third world.

(Points at the gaza strip "model" that was so effectively marketed to
Bagdad)

An American farmer today can grow five or six times the amount
> of food that he could in the 1950s on a single acre of land
> (or something like that). If you read about it, you'll be utterly
> impressed with the results of the green revolution.
>
> So your statement above just seems quite wrong, in principle
> as well as in particular.
>

I agree that there has been some cosmetic improvement (much of it the result
of
civil awereness and unions), and you will no dount agree that at some time
very big
numbers of people, voting or nonvoting, may get very very very upset by what
they
perceive a worsening of conditions (the deluded idiots..)

And since I have always that at some time poverty and despair will be
directly
linked to terrorism blooms, you better hope I am completely wrong in my
world
view, for if enough people get upset, and I am right, you would very soon
see the
glamorization of suicide-memes and the industrialization if terror. Current
events
keep vindicating me in that world view.

>  My assertion is that overpopulation is a MAJOR drain on efficiency,
>>
> > resources, energy, not even considering the cheapening of
> > human value, the stress caused by increased societal pressure,
> > exploitation, collapse of individual meaning and worth,

"I assert that overpopulation is the primary drain on over-all efficiency,
over-all
resources, access to [affordable] energy. I add that it also cheapens human
labor and causes undue stress. Plus this devaluation of the human worth
(which we can see most acutely in the third world) creates a palatable
climate
if "a sense of haunting and scarcity" where humans adopt an urge to get
what you can, before anyone else does.

Haven't quite got to the upcoming verb in that sentence, but
> I think that all that is poppycock (my own contribution to
> the standard of list argument here lately).
> What you write only describes the backward countries, who,
> usually because of corruption and the unequal distribution
> of capitalism, have yet to embrace sufficient technology
> to raise their standards of living---which has the exact
> *opposite* effect of what you state. Namely, increased
> standards of living *increase* efficiencies, decrease
> stresses in living, *decrease* exploitation, loss of human
> values, collapse of inidividual meaning and so on.
>

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree - if not for "certain distribution
inefficiencies" (to get an idea
what I might refer to, look
this<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912>,
then  comment) - (Yes I agree with that Vid) the west
would be becoming better at management. That is however irrelevant, since
the
west is decreasing in populations and all the damn places (who can be
asserted
to be also/as well subject to "these distribution inefficiencies") that are
poor are
essentially spiraling down.  Oh right you sidestepped the give that most
human
beings live in the third wold.

So what do I agree with ? - let me specific to avoid falling in semantic
traps (I am
dutch, and my English is reasonable, it is not my native tongue)

I agree that the western society has potential and opportunity to improve
itself,
fundamentally. I state that to my best perceptions most of the world does
most
does have potential and opportunity, and in many cases not even vision or
incentive to improve conditions. In many parts of Africa there are even
solid
incentives to reduce conditions.

Big portions of the world may have memes and cultures that make them
predisposed
to largescale "shooting themselves in the food".  Wildly fascinating term:
big parts
of the middle east are "talibanizing". Thats not shooting yourself in the
foot. Its more
like dangling both feet in a woodchipper. So why so these bearded simpletons
do that?

Maybe its some kind of zany LARP that got out of hand? You tell me.

> That's easy to see, because it is precisely in the most
> technologically advanced nations that the social trends
> are the best. Unless you want to resort to the old
> discredited Comintern line that the west is only achieving
> these unprecedented levels of prosperity by exploiting all
> the third world basket cases, which is palpably untrue.
>

There are arguments for that (or were) but I won't press these as a dogma,
as my
suspicions cannot be proven and its a castrated discourse. But I urge
caution to even
the most hysterical rightwingers, if that did any good.

I believe terms like "wholesale continental sodomy with coke bottles"
applies. But who
am I other than some unlikeble eurotrash?

> I do thank you for your impressive list of references. I'm
> pretty sure that it would be almost impossible for me to
> find an equally long list supporting my views, because your
> view is a la mode, so to speak. For every book pointing out
> the errors of the left/green coalition, there are five
> repeating the same claims. In that regard, it's just like
> global warming.
>

I feel you are muttering angrily with a hint of frustration but I am
absolutely certain
you will mock this perception.

> Reciting *more* references to your cause doesn't cause you
> to win rational debates.

No, my chances to bring you towards the baby child Jesus are as slim as
pushing
back volcanic matter back into the lava tubes with a garden hose. But I have
some hope
I reach doubters - and I think the stakes are high.

Unfortunately I am in a lose/lose situation.

1- I think the compound consequences of population growth in the whole world
as well as
in the mostly densely populated regions of earth are WORSE than any
potential climatic
effects. Worse whereas there is still wiggle room in some aspects of the
climate debate
I cannot suppress my moral outrage when people actually do deny that rampant
population
growth is "manageable".

2- voters cannot be swayed to not breed. You cannot win elections by
advocating democratic
reforms in breeding restrictions. It makes you unelectable. Neither is a
tyranny sustainable
that enforces breeding restrictions.

Hence - we are stuck with this situation - but that's why I am a H+ian (or
robot woo woo
yestron cultist) because I believe that if fundamental solutions do not
emerge in society
economical systems, politics, industry, management, etc etc) we are headed
for the
flusher.

We are not in a world where "ideal solutions: exist, but if I were harry
stalin potter, I would
cast might spells that create fountains of immortality (making the imbiber
healthy, smart,
beautiful, easily upgraded and augmented - *and completely unable to
procreate*).

I  think this is precisely where the solition lies.

I will then generously allow you to create competing fountains of your
choice, with the caveat
this marvel is hidden for the time being in a deserted but very stable
biodome a mile under the
surface on one of the hundred  biggest asteroids. It'll probably grow shark
fins on anyone
who drinks from it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090408/837758f2/attachment.html>