why has overpopulation never been a left issue?

[Kenshiro]

i was going to post a YT video but i thought that would just engender reactionary replies.

it seems to me that the idea of overpopulation is slowly, slowly making its way into public awareness. some people think the biggest problem in the world today is overpopulation and the solution to all problems is to kill a large amount of people, as soon as possible. so what does the left think about the idea of overpopulation?

[butterfly]

I think it's issue that is easily solved through increased access to family planning.

[Socialist Scum]

The entire world could fit on the Swedish Island of Gotland, so for now I think its okay.

[JimmyJazz]

Because there is no problem of overpopulation, only a problem with a world economy that does not provide people with what they need. Scarcity is not the reason people don't have their basic needs met; capitalist hoarding is. From my profile:

-------

Global spending in 1998 ($U.S. Billions):
Cosmetics in the United States 8
Pet foods in Europe and the United States 17
Business entertainment in Japan 35
Alcoholic drinks in Europe 105
Military spending in the world 780

Estimated additional costs to achieve universal access to the following basic services in all developing countries ($U.S. Billions):
Basic education for all 6
Water and sanitation for all 9
Reproductive health for all women 12
Basic health and nutrition 13

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

"The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported in 1998 that the world's 225 richest people now have a combined wealth of $1 trillion. That's equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorest people."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/gates99.htm

-------

And if by overpopulation you mean eventual overpopulation, then I guess the reason it's not a left issue is because the answer is so obvious that it's not really divisive: family planning. Any one with half a brain realizes this, whether they are on the right or left--a few "abstinence only" fundamentalist Christian morons in the Bush administration notwithstanding.

This book (http://books.google.com/books?id=tDsui1AA7mIC&dq=against+the+market:+political+economy,+market+s ocialism+and+the+marxist+critique+contents&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=zGh5Jw5har&sig=SVonFO9AjBpdxGyZ-NpGDIgpUhs&hl=en&ei=taCSSauiA4nKtQOLseG-Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result) does a good job of tracing two different historical schools of thought on this issue: the Malthusian view, which denies a right to subsistence, and therefore focuses on (over)population; and socialism, which firmly defends a right to subsistence, and therefore focuses on wealth (mal)distribution. So if anything, I'd say that overpopulation is a right-wing obsession, not a left-wing concern.

[Black Sheep]

Great posts, comrades!
As far as the eventual overpopulation,i guess that by the time that occurs, technology will be advanced enough to enable colonization and planet terraforming.

[Kenshiro]

I think it's issue that is easily solved through increased access to family planning.

care to elaborate? anyone?

JimmyJazz, i dont care about poverty or equality. i care about the alarming rate of population growth: whether this is beneficial to mankind, and what effects it will have on the future of mankind and our planet.

www . ohiopeakoilaction.org/threats-overpopulation_clip_image002.jpg

should we increase or decrease our population?

[JimmyJazz]

They are two sides of the same issue, which was the point of my post.

If you were primarily concerned about the environmental effects of population growth, you didn't make that clear.

[Demogorgon]

The higher the level of Human Development in a country or region, the lower the Birth Rate. I think you can see where this is going.

Also only some parts of the world are over-populated. There are others that desperately need more people (Scotland for one), allow free movement of people and things will balance themselves out before long.

[Kenshiro]

The higher the level of Human Development in a country or region, the lower the Birth Rate. I think you can see where this is going.



yes thats a basic fact that everybody knows.

global population is increasing, is this good or bad? what do those of you who believe in communism believe a suitable population is? will population still be increasing under communism? why would we want to terraform and colonise other planets? are bigger cities better? why do we need so many cities? why do we need so many people?

i regard a lack of answer on the overpopulation isssue as reactionary and conservative.

[danyboy27]

i agree that overpopulation will eventually be a problem, that simple logic, a lot of people. and a lot less ressources.

there is no magic solution, but i seriously think its time to find other places to live.

[butterfly]

global population is increasing, is this good or bad?
In the short-term, as long as we only have the one planet the prospect of increasing population levels is a negative inevitability.

what do those of you who believe in communism believe a suitable population is?
A suitable population level is one which is sustainable, one would presume this would be the case in a communist society.

why would we want to terraform and colonise other planets?
Other planets hold materials in abundance that are scarce on earth, to give one pragmatic example.
How about expanding the human species into the distant realms of space?

are bigger cities better?
Better in what respect?

why do we need so many cities? why do we need so many people?

We don't, but unless you like the politics of Saloth Sar it's going to occur anyway.

[F9]

people who "support" that there is even a case of "overpopulation" now in earth, just check google earth, and you will "surprised" that not only there isnt any overpopulation, but there is place to fit at the very least 3x all the population of earth!!!overpopulation its just a "bed time story" for naives!!

Fuserg9:star:

[ComradeOm]

it seems to me that the idea of overpopulation is slowly, slowly making its way into public awareness. some people think the biggest problem in the world today is overpopulation and the solution to all problems is to kill a large amount of people, as soon as possibleYou never hear of this guy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus) Alarmists have been squealing about 'overpopulation' for over two centuries now, yet the imagined catastrophe remains as illusion as ever*. Not surprising given that the fools consistently fail to factor in the ever increasing forces of production. We humans are perfectly capable of devising new solutions to the 'problem' of overpopulation. See, for example, the so-called Green Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_revolution)

*Given that this is OI, I feel obliged to point out that Malthus and his adherents, unlike Marx, did offer predictions of immediate and dire catastrophes


so what does the left think about the idea of overpopulation?In short - its all bullshit. I'm happy to say that Marx & Engels ("the crudest, most barbarous theory that ever existed") were near-contemporary critics of Malthus and the tradition has since been maintained by Marxists

[Kenshiro]

people who "support" that there is even a case of "overpopulation" now in earth, just check google earth, and you will "surprised" that not only there isnt any overpopulation, but there is place to fit at the very least 3x all the population of earth!!!overpopulation its just a "bed time story" for naives!!

Fuserg9:star:

that is the worst metaphor i have ever heard, work on your english plz.

what do we have to check, maintain and curb population growth or is it not an issue at all, something we should not even bother to consider? the graph that i linked alarms myself, does it not alarm communists?

will any communist consider overpopulation when the upcoming food shortages hit? or is it just all capitalism?

is there any global problem that could not be fixed right now by killing an immense number of people, by any means necessary, and reducing human population to a fraction of what it is right now, lets say 1%, or 6 million?

this is more of a philosophical rather than political question. myself, i have never cared for a world view focusing on equality and human rights, but rather the development of man and for man to be creative and happy and be harmonious with his environment.

taking another look at that graph and studying human population a bit more on wiki, it becomes clear to me every single problem humans have after the agricultural revolution has come from overpopulation. yes, overpopulation, even 1000's of years ago. it is called 'over'population when problems arise. for example, hierarchy is what communists think of as a problem. population growth = the development of hierarchy(civilization).

lets consider this far fetched scenario. this will very likely never happen, but this is a communist forum so i suspect members here will have good imaginations.

every single human on the planet is killed except for 1 million in a small city, say, in Europe. is there ANY possible negative outcome for our planet, following this catastrophe? apart from the lives of those lost?

[GPDP]

My primitivist senses are tingling!

[#FF0000]

that is the worst metaphor i have ever heard, work on your english plz.

Maybe English isn't his first language you ignorant fuck.

My actual response is very simple. Overpopulation is not a problem. The problem is unequal distribution and destructive, inefficient ways of producing things.

[ZeroNowhere]

every single human on the planet is killed except for 1 million in a small city, say, in Europe. is there ANY possible negative outcome for our planet, following this catastrophe? apart from the lives of those lost?
Malthus? Is that you? :laugh:
Overpopulation isn't a left issue because it isn't an issue. Hell, birth rates are decreasing, and population would appear to be levelling off. Also, overpopulation implies a population not being sustainable, while we could feed at least 33 billion, according to estimates by the UNDP, and 500 billion or so with hydroponics, if we so wished. Hell, we certainly have far more than enough food for everybody, which makes all of your 'food shortages' doomsaying baseless silliness.


The problem is unequal distribution and destructive, inefficient ways of producing things.
As well a destructive ways of, well, destroying crops.

[The Idler]

Overpopulation has been a left issue, look at the one-child policy in China. Globally, there are enough resources for tens of billions of people so overpopulation isn't an issue. Global overpopulation is a science fiction dystopia (Logan's Run, Soylent Green) which Malthus used for his own conservative agenda.

[#FF0000]

Overpopulation has been a left issue, look at the one-child policy in China.

It's sort of a stretch to say that 1) overpopulation is a "left issue" just because of that and 2) that China has anything to do with socialism.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Colonization of the moon, and soon enough, Mars.

Along with introducing contraceptives to the third world, where that massive population boom is happening.

[Phalanx]

Of course overpopulation is a concern. If any poster actually took 5 minutes to research the problem, or better yet, read Jared Diamond's Collapse, there'd be alot more informed posts.

Take micropopulations of the Pacific Islands, for example. When an island's population outgrew the pace at which the soil could produce enough nutrients, there would be either a mass suicide of island elders and sick, or mass killings amongst tribes. Rwanda's genocide happened in much of the same manner. Although Rwanda has extremely fertile soil, Rwandan farming practices, being similar to many third-world agriarian societies, lead to underproduction and in the end, food shortages.

Of course, if the world's food supply was redirected, the problem would be solved, but only in the short term. Our assault on fertile land worldwide has created a massive depletion in arable land. For example, in Iowa, the most fertile state in the US of A, topsoil has decreased by nearly 2 feet.

Of course, when humans are able to get nutrients directly from the sun instead of eating plants or animals, only then will we be able to create a sustainable human population.

[RGacky3]

Rwanda's genocide happened in much of the same manner. Although Rwanda has extremely fertile soil, Rwandan farming practices, being similar to many third-world agriarian societies, lead to underproduction and in the end, food shortages.


Rwanda's genocide did'nt have to do with lack of food.

As far as I'm concerned as an Anarchist, its a non issue, Anarchism is about how to organize society. THat is more of a scientific issue.

[Phalanx]

Sure it was. Of course overpopulation wasn't the only reason, but Rwanda, being the most densely-populated country in Africa and one facing serious soil erosion problems, has simply too many people for it to feed. Belgium or the Netherlands are also severely overpopulated countries, but being the first world they simply don't have those sort of problems anymore. But they did, such as the Thirty-Years War, which killed up to a third of central Europe's population and was marked by mass starvation and famines.

[Vanguard1917]

'it is absurd to talk of overpopulation so long as there is enough waste land in the valley of the Mississippi for the whole population of Europe to be transplanted there, so long as no more than one-third of the earth can be considered cultivated, and so long as the production of this third itself can be raised sixfold and more by the application of improvements already known.'
- Engels

History and population have moved on since Engels wrote that, but the point remains just as valid. It remains just as absurd, as well as just as reactionary, to blame the world's masses for the failures of capitalism, which is what the Malthusians do.

That's why leftists have historically tended to condemn Malthusian ideas. The problem is not one of the number of people on earth, but of flawed social organisation.

[RGacky3]

Sure it was. Of course overpopulation wasn't the only reason, but Rwanda, being the most densely-populated country in Africa and one facing serious soil erosion problems, has simply too many people for it to feed.

Thats may be the case, but historically it was a racist war based on political power, they wern't hording food stock piles, just because something may have existed does'nt make it the cause.

[Blackscare]

The entire world could fit on the Swedish Island of Gotland, so for now I think its okay.


That may be true, but it's totally irrelevant. Consider the amount of arable land on the planet and then contrast that with the current population, projected growth, and the number of acres of productive land needed to sustain one individual over the course of a year, and the situation becomes much more complicated. Even if every cropland and pasture was ideal and produced at full capacity, the surface area of the planet means that there IS a limit to the amount of food that can be produced.

I don't think that anyone ever seriously brings up the subject of overpopulation in terms of actually physically fitting everyone, except in the case of some cities I guess, but honestly with proper planning and expansion that isn't a real problem.

[brigadista]

overpopulation is usually raised as an issue by rich wertserners about peole in teh developing world.

People in the developing world usually have more chidlren because there is a higher mortality rate and particularly in rural communities children work on the land qnd the community relies on all members to work for survival,

Its a non issue - usually raised by the idle rich about why the poor should not have children they can't "afford" - makes me sick

[Vanguard1917]

overpopulation is usually raised as an issue by rich wertserners about peole in teh developing world.

People in the developing world usually have more chidlren because there is a higher mortality rate and particularly in rural communities children work on the land qnd the community relies on all members to work for survival,

Its a non issue - usually raised by the idle rich about why the poor should not have children they can't "afford" - makes me sick

Well pointed out. Malthusian ideas have always appealed to the rich because they give intellectual justification for their instictive fear of the vulgar masses are overbreeding.

[JimmyJazz]

Even if every cropland and pasture was ideal and produced at full capacity, the surface area of the planet means that there IS a limit to the amount of food that can be produced.

Obviously, it could become a problem. But it isn't yet. And the point that I think most people here are stressing is that the much more urgent problem is of "overpopulation" "concerns" being used as an excuse to attack the subsistence rights of the people already living on earth.

Most overpopulation discussions reek of first world chauvinism, with Americans and Britons getting indignant about the population boom "down there" in the global South. Presumably they'd like to take it upon themselves to manage this problem, since they've done such an awesome job of managing third world development through the IMF, WB and WTO.

Even on Common Dreams, a Greeny/left-liberal site, you will get assholes popping up in articles on murderous Western-led trade agreements with comments like "but did you see how the Nicaraguan lady in the accompanying picture has two little kids and is already pregnant again? Until they deal with that I don't think we should worry about giving them aid!" And ironically, they're right, because if we'd stop giving them aid with all the free-trade strings that come attached, they probably wouldn't be living in squalor by now.

If a country has overpopulation problems, let that country deal with it. It's none of our fucking business. And America, with a population that is both sustainable and stable, does not have overpopulation problems. That's why imo we need to shut the hell up about overpopulation.

[brigadista]

yes the usual bourgeois shite

[WhitemageofDOOM]

That may be true, but it's totally irrelevant. Consider the amount of arable land on the planet and then contrast that with the current population, projected growth, and the number of acres of productive land needed to sustain one individual over the course of a year, and the situation becomes much more complicated. Even if every cropland and pasture was ideal and produced at full capacity, the surface area of the planet means that there IS a limit to the amount of food that can be produced.

Arable land is not in any way a limiter on the amount of delicious food we can produce. There are methods to produce crops without such a wasteful use of land, all we have to do is start using them.

Overpopulation only becomes a real issue when there is no more room to stuff humans in. And that is a long long long way away, by then we will probably have a solution to that problem.

[Phalanx]

'it is absurd to talk of overpopulation so long as there is enough waste land in the valley of the Mississippi for the whole population of Europe to be transplanted there, so long as no more than one-third of the earth can be considered cultivated, and so long as the production of this third itself can be raised sixfold and more by the application of improvements already known.'
- Engels

History and population have moved on since Engels wrote that, but the point remains just as valid. It remains just as absurd, as well as just as reactionary, to blame the world's masses for the failures of capitalism, which is what the Malthusians do.

That's why leftists have historically tended to condemn Malthusian ideas. The problem is not one of the number of people on earth, but of flawed
social organisation.

Not really. If six billion lived in the Mississippi valley, there would be catastrophic periods of starvation and instability. Countries like Bangladesh are already experiencing rice shortages.

Of course, the problem is distribution. But more nations depending on food imports means less nations exporting. It's a real problem and I think the real problem is that people just don't like to talk about it.

Overpopulation isn't just a human problem. It's a real problem that any overly successful species experiences.

I'd like to see you guys break from meaningless quotes from Marx and Engels and try to use some rational thought.

[Phalanx]

Arable land is not in any way a limiter on the amount of delicious food we can produce. There are methods to produce crops without such a wasteful use of land, all we have to do is start using them.

Overpopulation only becomes a real issue when there is no more room to stuff humans in. And that is a long long long way away, by then we will probably have a solution to that problem.

Room to stuff people in is by far not the meaning of overpopulation. Even if we start using arable land wisely, with our current population, the world is headed for disaster. But if we keep up our techniques we've got now, disaster will come (for many parts of the world at least) much, much sooner.


If a country has overpopulation problems, let that country deal with it. It's none of our fucking business. And America, with a population that is both sustainable and stable, does not have overpopulation problems. That's why imo we need to shut the hell up about overpopulation. That's where your wrong. If say, Mexico, started having extreme droughts and soon it couldn't feed itself without massive shipments of aid, you honestly think the US wouldn't have an obligation to help Mexico? I'm not talking in a bleeding heart humanitarian way, either. Creating large amounts of (even more) desperate people worldwide is a recipe for disaster. It's not just the third world that needs population checks. By around the 1200's England was already overpopulated, meaning that they couldn't sustain their population without importing food.

[JimmyJazz]

By around the 1200's England was already overpopulated, meaning that they couldn't sustain their population without importing food.

Lol, it's called an international division of labor.

By your logic every non-farming household in America is overpopulated because they can't feed all 4-5 family members on the produce they grow in their own garden.

[Plagueround]

this is more of a philosophical rather than political question. myself, i have never cared for a world view focusing on equality and human rights, but rather the development of man and for man to be creative and happy and be harmonious with his environment.


You cannot separate the two.

[Phalanx]

Lol, it's called an international division of labor.

By your logic every non-farming household in America is overpopulated because they can't feed all 4-5 family members on the produce they grow in their own garden.

England being overpopulated in the 12th century had little impact because there were plenty of countries able to export food into the country. I'm saying that with the increase of countries depending on imported food, and less nations able to export it, we're going to see major problems. And it will happen unless we can find a way to end nutrient depletion.

[brigadista]

which countries?

[Kenshiro]

Overpopulation has been a left issue, look at the one-child policy in China. Globally, there are enough resources for tens of billions of people so overpopulation isn't an issue. Global overpopulation is a science fiction dystopia (Logan's Run, Soylent Green) which Malthus used for his own conservative agenda.

you dont like the one child policy? you think it breaches chinese human rights?

we are suffocating the planet, and you want more poor chinese?

forget human rights for one second. WHY do we want more people?

this forums apathy and indifference regarding human population is shocking!

imagine there are 2 capitalists ruling over 98 peasants. of those peasants, 20 are communists. why the fuck would you want that factor to increase?!!!!

the failure to acknowledge overpopulation or at the very least the negative effects of human population shows what a utopian and dead end philosophy communism is.

[Kenshiro]

'it is absurd to talk of overpopulation so long as there is enough waste land in the valley of the Mississippi for the whole population of Europe to be transplanted there, so long as no more than one-third of the earth can be considered cultivated, and so long as the production of this third itself can be raised sixfold and more by the application of improvements already known.'
- Engels

History and population have moved on since Engels wrote that, but the point remains just as valid. It remains just as absurd, as well as just as reactionary, to blame the world's masses for the failures of capitalism, which is what the Malthusians do.

That's why leftists have historically tended to condemn Malthusian ideas. The problem is not one of the number of people on earth, but of flawed social organisation.

capitalism can only exist with a large number of people on earth. why then would you want to enlarge that number?

capitalism hasnt failed. capitalism has won.

the fact that you quote about the amount of humans that can stand in one area and that there is much more than that area shows you do not fully understand the threat of overpopulation.


overpopulation is usually raised as an issue by rich wertserners about peole in teh developing world.

People in the developing world usually have more chidlren because there is a higher mortality rate and particularly in rural communities children work on the land qnd the community relies on all members to work for survival,

Its a non issue - usually raised by the idle rich about why the poor should not have children they can't "afford" - makes me sick

you are an idiot. i do not care what you think about rich people.


Well pointed out. Malthusian ideas have always appealed to the rich because they give intellectual justification for their instictive fear of the vulgar masses are overbreeding.

you are an even bigger idiot. rich people want the poor to breed. because they know that out of every 1,000 child is born, only 1 of them will be open to anti-capitalist ideas, and 999 of the children will side with the rich. how many recent revolutions have there been in a first world country? how many Weathermen Undergound have their been?


Colonization of the moon, and soon enough, Mars.


the moon... and then mars?

what, do you think humans havent shit on enough planets already?



quote=Kenshiro;1357071]myself, i have never cared for a world view focusing on equality and human rights, but rather the development of man and for man to be creative and happy and be harmonious with his environment.[\quote]


You cannot separate the two.

i think the golden age of pericles disagrees with you.

progress has never been smooth, and by progress i mean everything that has led us to today.

evolution and history shows that humans were not evolved to be equipped with the ability to live in cities amongst millions of people, and that a human population over tens of thousands engenders something horrific.

there is absolutely no way humans will evolve with the ability to live harmoniously with millions of other humans, and with the enviroment, before we nuke each other. imo humans wont be around for very much longer before we nuke each other, and life will be extremely frustrating and unbearable even before we are crippled with food shortages.

there is just no way humanity can live with our planet, at the rate we are breeding.

[Qayin]

Apart from the fact the elite of the anglo-american establishments have invested so much into eugenics,social-darwinism and sterilization policies and practices through the 19-20th centuries its obvious the elite hate the poor and consider them inferior.

It is a leftist issue but state force isnt something we should look to like the disgusting one child policies,sterilization,forced abortion ect.

[Plagueround]

A primitivist who spreads their message from a computer is essentially telling the rest of the world "You are not fit to enjoy the technology and privilege I enjoy, there are too many of you."

At the heart of this misanthropic philosophy is a cruel and unapologetic hatred of humans not born into first world luxury. The idea that our approach should be deemed invalid because there aren't many communists out there doesn't seem well thought out. If anything, the urgency of creating a system that is capable of providing for all and not just a privileged view should become more apparent. "Overpopulation" will only be a problem so long as we sit back and ignore the root causes of denying people the abundant resources we possess, which is what the primmie "wait for disaster" approach seems to entail.

[Kenshiro]

A primitivist who spreads their message from a computer is essentially telling the rest of the world "You are not fit to enjoy the technology and privilege I enjoy, there are too many of you."

At the heart of this misanthropic philosophy is a cruel and unapologetic hatred of humans not born into first world luxury.

you make up excuses because you do not have answers.

[Plagueround]

you make up excuses because you do not have answers.

I most certainly do have answers. You simply don't like them because they distract from your attempt to appear as some sort of ultra enlightened doomsday prophet.

[Kenshiro]

I most certainly do have answers. You simply don't like them because they distract from your attempt to appear as some sort of ultra enlightened doomsday prophet.

you have no answers.

once again revleft resorts to useless ad hominem attacks and completely disregards my ideas... preferring useless namecalling over intellectual debate.

my questions remain unanswerable.

[Plagueround]

you have no answers.

once again revleft resorts to useless ad hominem attacks and completely disregards my ideas... preferring useless namecalling over intellectual debate.

my questions remain unanswerable.

You were dismissed by me the moment you started beginning responses with "you are an idiot" and "you are a bigger idiot". People have taken the time to answer you politely and were met with rudeness, so please do not pretend you have some sort of high ground.

You haven't even given a good reason as to why the answers presented were not satisfactory.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

the moon... and then mars?

what, do you think humans havent shit on enough planets already?

Shit on? I think you mean improved.


evolution and history shows that humans were not evolved to be equipped with the ability to live in cities amongst millions of people

there is absolutely no way humans will evolve with the ability to live harmoniously with millions of other humans

So random evolution is ineffective you say? Good i agree, let's start the participant evolution asap. We could use some better instincts for living in hives, that's for sure.


and with the enviroment

We adapt the enviroment to us, we do not adapt to it.


before we nuke each other. imo humans wont be around for very much longer before we nuke each other, and life will be extremely frustrating and unbearable even before we are crippled with food shortages.

there is just no way humanity can live with our planet, at the rate we are breeding.

Boy you are a misanthrope.
There are many ways we can live on the planet, the problem is they require a dedicated effort towards sustainability. This is something that is fundamentally impossible in the current system.

We certainly won't be dying out anytime soon however, most succesful species ever evolved and all that.

[Dimentio]

i was going to post a YT video but i thought that would just engender reactionary replies.

it seems to me that the idea of overpopulation is slowly, slowly making its way into public awareness. some people think the biggest problem in the world today is overpopulation and the solution to all problems is to kill a large amount of people, as soon as possible. so what does the left think about the idea of overpopulation?

Give women education, and soon, we will have around 2,1 children/family. We could see effects in African countries where birthrates are dropping.

[revolution inaction]

If you think the worlds overpopulated you know what to do.

http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/article/813/813168/alt-tab-3--20070815045716225.jpg

[#FF0000]

Why should I care about trees and animals more than humans, Kenshiro?

EDIT: Also I think we went over this a million times. We have more than enough resources to support our population and more. Goddamn.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Why should I care about trees and animals more than humans, Kenshiro?
Maybe he's some kind of zoologist. A twisted one indeed.

[Vanguard1917]

capitalism can only exist with a large number of people on earth. why then would you want to enlarge that number?

Even if that was true, what kind of logic is that? Should i conclude that, because capitalists sometimes require a well-fed, educated and healthy workforce in order to raise productivity, public health and access to food and education are bad things, since they 'help capitalists'?

The fact that more and more people are able to live longer and healthier lives on earth is a good thing, not a bad thing.



you are an even bigger idiot. rich people want the poor to breed.


Then why are nearly all Malthusian organisations led by the wealthy and posh boys? See those from the leading Malthusian campaigning group in the UK -- Optimum Population Trust -- for an example.

If you study the history of Malthusianism, you will see that it is an ideology of the rich.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

the moon... and then mars?

what, do you think humans havent shit on enough planets already?

It's called Extropianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extropianism) actually, and it's a good thing. The more bodies we inhabit other than Earth the greater our chances of survival.


progress has never been smooth, and by progress i mean everything that has led us to today.So? Any kind of progress is preferable to stagnation, which is simply a more drawn-out version of extinction.


evolution and history shows that humans were not evolved to be equipped with the ability to live in cities amongst millions of people, and that a human population over tens of thousands engenders something horrific.Maybe it does for you, but I actually like cities. There's something dignified about living in a place where you aren't up to your arse in mud and rural ignorance.


there is absolutely no way humans will evolve with the ability to live harmoniously with millions of other humans, and with the enviroment, before we nuke each other. imo humans wont be around for very much longer before we nuke each other, and life will be extremely frustrating and unbearable even before we are crippled with food shortages. Considering that there have been billions of humans on this planet for some decades now, as every day passes your opinion becomes more and more wrong. Your mistake is in assuming that all other humans are as stupid as you are - "oh noes, I have no food! I know, let's nuke everyone else so that I end up killing everyone who could grow me food, and trash the planet into the bargain!"

Seriously, that's fucking stupid.


there is just no way humanity can live with our planet, at the rate we are breeding.Improve quality of life for everyone and you'll see birthrates drop like a stone. But somehow I get the impression that's not what you want to see happen.

[ZeroNowhere]

Then why are nearly all Malthusian organisations led by the wealthy and posh boys? See those from the leading Malthusian campaigning group in the UK -- Optimum Population Trust -- for an example.

If you study the history of Malthusianism, you will see that it is an ideology of the rich.
Well, technically, yes, population growth, especially in 'Third World' countries, is in their interests, since it means cheaper labour. Of course, that doesn't make it a bad thing; capitalism is the problem here, not people having babies.
Malthusianism isn't enforced, at least, not much, but it's certainly helpful, though in a different way (generally, in attitude towards poverty, etc). Hell, it's like the 'free market', in a way. I don't believe that there are too many capitalists who want corporate welfare to be abolished, but, seeing as the 'free market' people generally end up condemning welfare and such more than anything else, it gives a valid excuse for neoliberalism.

[Jazzratt]

Either kill or geld yourself, otherwise you've not a leg to stand on.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Either kill or geld yourself, otherwise you've not a leg to stand on.

Yes, be a hero!
You save the world by killing yourself, thus giving the food to other.

[Kenshiro]

Why should I care about trees and animals more than humans?


there we go.

[#FF0000]

there we go.

Still waiting for an answer.

[ZeroNowhere]

there we go.
Gentlemen, you can't troll in here. This is OI.

[Bilan]

It's interesting to note that countries with full developed economies have relatively low population growth, if any at all (I believe Japans population is declining), whilst those which are underdeveloped have sky rocketing populations.
There's a pretty simple link between those two, and the development of capitalism.

[synthesis]

you have no answers.

Well, you don't really have any questions.

You asked why the left has never been preoccupied with overpopulation as a social problem in and of itself, and you were provided with an answer: namely, that "overpopulation" is only a problem when coupled with improper distribution of resources, and also that, for various reasons, population growth tends to decline dramatically in the face of economic modernity.

Now, you can debate the effectiveness and/or ethics of redistributing resources all you want, but your initial question was answered, and as far as I can tell, you haven't asked anything else.

So before demanding answers, I think you should reiterate what exactly your question is.

[#FF0000]

I'm still curious as to why I should value trees and dirt over people.

[Kenshiro]

your curiosity will be satisfied in a bit

[Charles Xavier]

The fact that under current food production everyone on this planet can be fed 3 healthy meals a day. And the fact that farmers are being paid to not produce food for the purpose of speculation, and further food is being turned into fuel.

So its not an issue of over population, its an issue of access for all. The world is not overpopulated, its supply lines go from the third world to the first world. The third world subsidizes the living conditions and monopolies of the first world.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=kRKbM3G2CK0C&dq=World+Hunger+12+Myths&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=_bowJy3NdW&sig=aEJkqsVZr1Znl4GdXZq69W8u2Oc&hl=en&ei=TGqYSd_sA5y6MuqolZMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

Read this book, it has the twelve myths on world hunger, it states on current grain production every human on earth can be fed 3,500 calories a day. That doesn't even include beans, corn or other vegetables!

Most people too poor to buy the food

Many hungry countries are net exporters of food

No direct correlation between population and hunger

Hunger in Nigeria which is Sparsely populated

Wealth in Netherlands which is Densely populated

[casper]

there is absolutely no way humans will evolve with the ability to live harmoniously with millions of other humans, and with the enviroment, before we nuke each other. imo humans wont be around for very much longer before we nuke each other, and life will be extremely frustrating and unbearable even before we are crippled with food shortages.

we won't nuke each other. (its not logical)
humans are not normally violent
if we do things right, life won't be frustrating or "unbearable"
food shortages are unlikely if situations are handled properly

[Jazzratt]

Which historical epoch was it where we had populations fewer than a million? Didn't the ancient Persians mobilise an army of a million?

Point is there always have been and will continue to be many people. Accompanied by decently planned infrastructure this is absolutely fine. The "we need 3 earths" nutters can stuff it; as pointed out eloquently by others in this thread - we have the resources and populations plateau and even fall when quality of life increases.

[#FF0000]

Point is there always have been and will continue to be many people. Accompanied by decently planned infrastructure this is absolutely fine. The "we need 3 earths" nutters can stuff it; as pointed out eloquently by others in this thread - we have the resources and populations plateau and even fall when quality of life increases.

That is a fact. Aren't there people in Germany worrying about the low birthrate in that country?

[Ele'ill]

My actual response is very simple. Overpopulation is not a problem. The problem is unequal distribution and destructive, inefficient ways of producing things.



So if everyone had the same amount of resources to use on a daily basis (car, food, access to market places, cities instead of shanty towns etc) you don't think there would be a sudden and detrimental impact on the environment?



Accompanied by decently planned infrastructure this is absolutely fine.


if we do things right, life won't be frustrating or "unbearable"
food shortages are unlikely if situations are handled properly


Improve quality of life for everyone and you'll see birthrates drop like a stone.


Oh. So the trick is to have it all work out ok. For a second there I was worried about vagueness. :rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

So if everyone had the same amount of resources to use on a daily basis (car, food, access to market places, cities instead of shanty towns etc) you don't think there would be a sudden and detrimental impact on the environment?

Yeah but that isn't because there are just too many people. It's because the way we do things (make cars, build cities, produce food, produce anything) is silly and woefully inefficient and wasteful.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yeah but that isn't because there are just too many people. It's because the way we do things (make cars, build cities, produce food, produce anything) is silly and woefully inefficient and wasteful.
But dude, that would take up, like, 50000 Earths man! Thank Gore for poverty!
Also, would it be suddenly detrimental to the environment for food to be provided for everyone? Well, no.


Read this book, it has the twelve myths on world hunger, it states on current grain production every human on earth can be fed 3,500 calories a day. That doesn't even include beans, corn or other vegetables!
Or meat. A rough estimate for something counting that is around 4.3 pounds of food per day. Have you ever tried eating that much?

[Kenshiro]

we won't nuke each other. (its not logical)
humans are not normally violent
if we do things right, life won't be frustrating or "unbearable"
food shortages are unlikely if situations are handled properly

wars are inevitable with such a huge population.

in first world countries, the 'physical' human condition has never been greater, in terms of birth rates, life expectancy, health care. but this is no excuse for the inane, mechanical, confusing lives we all lead. our cities are getting bigger, yet social isolation has never been greater and studies continue to show more and more people are having less friends and people they can rely on. multiculturalism is destroying communities and creating ghettos. stupid useless movements like feminism fuck up relationships and nobody knows what their gender role is anymore. life is becoming an increasingly neurotic and meaningless existence.

which is the real disease. social anxiety, depression, or a modern happy man?

[CommieCat]

stupid useless movements like feminism fuck up relationships and nobody knows what their gender role is anymore.

I know!!! Those useless feminists arguing that woman shouldn't be confined to the kitchen and menial jobs!!! Why can't it just be the good old days where the man was the man and the woman was the woman (i.e. the domestic slave)? :(

Advice: stop watching Fight Club and shut the fuck up.

[casper]

wars are inevitable with such a huge population. i have a feeling most people wouldn't want to put a gun to someone else's head. unless that someone else has been de-humanised and the person shooting has been told its for a good reason. Wars are fought because of resources and leaders. All war is civil war.


in first world countries, the 'physical' human condition has never been greater, in terms of birth rates, life expectancy, health care. but this is no excuse for the inane, mechanical, confusing lives we all lead.
I blame the inane,mechanical, "confusing" lives on a broken system, one that works(for some) but not well, like a car without headlights in the night. I think we should have headlights and better roads, not less people in my way(they also have places they need to go). o and we need less cars on the side of the road to.


our cities are getting bigger, yet social isolation has never been greater and studies continue to show more and more people are having less friends and people they can rely on.
that would be a intresting study to see. do you have the source?


multiculturalism is destroying communities and creating ghettos.
? how, perhaps if people can't accept other ways of living then whatever group has power will cram either their ideas or their foot down the dissidents throats. Pluralism is a good thing, not accepting it is the problem.


stupid useless movements like feminism fuck up relationships and nobody knows what their gender role is anymore.
Gender roles are man made. They are useless, needless and serve no purpose in modern society except to inhibit expression. Gender roles create more problems then solve them. we don't need gender roles.


life is becoming an increasingly neurotic and meaningless existence. and so it has always been...


which is the real disease. social anxiety, depression, or a modern happy man? welcome to the search for meaning, feel free to exclude all fabrications... however, are we not the happiest when we are the most involved in our self-delusions, or is it just when we forget that we are delusional? i think society is moving towards rejecting the fabricated in our relations to god,friends, etc. but so much is false. it takes some searching to find something that captures you and allows a sense of meaning. naturally as people question and break away from old faiths and ideology they were taught to believe, they will go through a troubled mental time.

[Bitter Ashes]

Well, wouldnt birth control solve a lot? Without the Vatican dictating to all these people surely they'll get a grip and put something on the end instead of popping out 14 kids and STI's, left, right and centre just because one old guy in Rome says so? :rolleyes:

[ZeroNowhere]

wars are inevitable with such a huge population.
Back it up.

[Jazzratt]

That is a fact. Aren't there people in Germany worrying about the low birthrate in that country?

I wasn't disputing it, I was agreeing with it. Sorry if the wording confused you on that issue.

[#FF0000]

I wasn't disputing it, I was agreeing with it. Sorry if the wording confused you on that issue.

And I was agreeing with you, and providing an example. :lol: Sorry about my wording there.

[Kenshiro]

I know!!! Those useless feminists arguing that woman shouldn't be confined to the kitchen and menial jobs!!! Why can't it just be the good old days where the man was the man and the woman was the woman (i.e. the domestic slave)? :(

Advice: stop watching Fight Club and shut the fuck up.

pretty much typical feminist: you wish women could be men.

[StalinFanboy]

Did your mommy not love you enough when you were little?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

pretty much typical feminist: you wish women could be men.

Typical idiot: you make sweeping generalisations about feminists.

[Kenshiro]

i have a feeling most people wouldn't want to put a gun to someone else's head. unless that someone else has been de-humanised and the person shooting has been told its for a good reason. Wars are fought because of resources and leaders. All war is civil war.

I blame the inane,mechanical, "confusing" lives on a broken system, one that works(for some) but not well, like a car without headlights in the night. I think we should have headlights and better roads, not less people in my way(they also have places they need to go). o and we need less cars on the side of the road to.

that would be a intresting study to see. do you have the source?

? how, perhaps if people can't accept other ways of living then whatever group has power will cram either their ideas or their foot down the dissidents throats. Pluralism is a good thing, not accepting it is the problem.

Gender roles are man made. They are useless, needless and serve no purpose in modern society except to inhibit expression. Gender roles create more problems then solve them. we don't need gender roles.
and so it has always been...
welcome to the search for meaning, feel free to exclude all fabrications... however, are we not the happiest when we are the most involved in our self-delusions, or is it just when we forget that we are delusional? i think society is moving towards rejecting the fabricated in our relations to god,friends, etc. but so much is false. it takes some searching to find something that captures you and allows a sense of meaning. naturally as people question and break away from old faiths and ideology they were taught to believe, they will go through a troubled mental time.

wars are fought because there are so many people. other people controlling resources. nobody is comfortable. nobody is allowed free existence, the ability to control their own lives independently-to hunt for their own food and make their own clothes and find their own shelter. the ability to walk anywhere they want to go.

its illegal for me to camp in national parks in Aus :( and they are being cut down to be used for production to make things for people who have absolutely no reason to exist.

if cars didnt exist, my whole family and all of my relatives would be living in 1 village. why should we need to spread out and apart? doesnt that just complicate things?

multiculturalism is hate. multiculturalism is disrespect. cultures deserve respect. even my crappy colony Australia had respectful heritage up until about 20 years ago when the immigrants really surged in. Now, once awesome places like Punchbowl and Bankstown which were once home to those of anglo-saxon descent have become ghettos. theyve been shit on. what good is multiculturalism? is there ANY benefits to multiculturalism?

i have links but i am restricted from posting any.

i used the phrase 'gender role' in the context of romantic relationships. a better phrase to use on the whole is biological role. the simplest of gender differences could be mens superior physical strength, and womens empathy and nurturing abilities.

biology is sexist. civilization is sexist. a civilization founded on production is sexist. civilizations values man over woman for his ability to produce.

the modern liberal equality feminism is retarted. feminists argue for the conditions of women in the workplace. then women cry after being raped by men. why compete with men in the first place? men are not simply bastards for being rapists. they will do anything to compete, to win. men are power hungry. men are competitors. women are nurturers.

women will always be valued less by civilization. it is impossible for women to achieve equality inside capitalism-and that wouldnt be beneficial either.

this is not to say females are of intrinsically less value than men. back to biological roles-of course, modern society is warped-i will try a simple analogy to demonstrate my point.

im attracted to a female. her kind spirit and gentle touch appeals to me. she is attracted to my intelligence, muscles, means to provide food, and ability to fend off other males. i love her in exchange for nurturing abilities-fixing my tie, dressing me properly when i look scruffy, teaching, disciplining our children. she loves me in exchange for my means to provide her and our family with food(the modern equiv of which is work) and my ability to physically protect her(a universal need persistant throughout history).

our relationship works because it is founded upon the needs of each gender. modern society fucks this up... but 'gender roles' or 'biological roles' persist throughout dystiopian crisis: girls are more sociable in high school, males choose phsycial, challenging occupations: plumbing, electrician, commanding warships, flying planes in the army, flying commercial airoplanes, building stuff making stuff destroying stuff. where women are teachers yet very rarely teach hard sciences, work in day care centres, study art courses..

feminism is as much pro capitalist as it is completely useless and of no benefit. disregarding biological characteristics will only retart our already retarted society.

it has hardly always been... well. my childhood was pretty awesome. my current gripe is the restrictions on exploration and adventure outside of civilization. the natural world is being destroyed in favour of endless production for useless people.. created for no reason.. many of which share "dissent" regarding life's apparant meaninglessness.

overpopulation is imo the greatest problem and threat to our world-not just humanity's, capitalism will never be destroyed, communists are silly idealistic and deluded. however... killing a large number of people, by whatever means neccessary, will solve many problems and be perhaps the final solution. afterwhich progress can begin :)

could you elaborate on the last part? :)

[Kenshiro]

Did your mommy not love you enough when you were little?

have any intelligent posit, or will you just leave it that, anarchist?


Typical idiot: you make sweeping generalisations about feminists.

incorrect, my statement was in direct response to CommieCat.

[ZeroNowhere]

wars are fought because there are so many people.
Again, prove it.


the modern liberal equality feminism is retarted. feminists argue for the conditions of women in the workplace. then women cry after being raped by men. why compete with men in the first place? men are not simply bastards for being rapists. they will do anything to compete, to win. men are power hungry. men are competitors. women are nurturers.
Prove it.


overpopulation is imo the greatest problem and threat to our world-not just humanity's, capitalism will never be destroyed, communists are silly idealistic and deluded.
Cool.

[Kenshiro]

why do you quote one line and cut out the substance which could have answered your question?

what do you want me to prove? be more specific. what do you want, links, citations? can you not argue my substance?

[WhitemageofDOOM]

can you not argue my substance?

Seeing as you admitted to wanting to commit genocide? No. You have no substance, you are merely a murderous misanthrope.

You are also a sexist fucking pig. You are the scum of the earth and a hypocrite.
After all you won't take your own life, and to wish upon others what you would not accept upon your self is hypocrisy.

[Kenshiro]

fair enough. not everybody can recognize and argue new ideas.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

fair enough. not everybody can recognize and argue new ideas.

Kill the darkies is neither a new idea, or one worth arguing about.

[Kenshiro]

if you ever learn to recognize and argue new ideas, please argue with me.

otherwise, you have misinterpreted me and responded with the typical ad hom, so you are useless to me as it stands.

[Plagueround]

Interesting. A primitivist fascist.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

otherwise, you have misinterpreted me and responded with the typical ad hom

Ad hom really? I called you a sexist, a racist, and a murderous misanthrope, i believe your own words bear these out.


the ability to control their own lives independently-to hunt for their own food and make their own clothes and find their own shelter. the ability to walk anywhere they want to go.

its illegal for me to camp in national parks in Aus :(and they are being cut down to be used for production to make things for people who have absolutely no reason to exist.


This was selfish, concern for self above your ideals. You have no more reason to exist than any random person in the world after all.
This can be added to your list of bullshit. Since you care about you, not your goal.


if cars didnt exist, my whole family and all of my relatives would be living in 1 village. why should we need to spread out and apart? doesnt that just complicate things?

multiculturalism is hate. multiculturalism is disrespect. cultures deserve respect. even my crappy colony Australia had respectful heritage up until about 20 years ago when the immigrants really surged in. Now, once awesome places like Punchbowl and Bankstown which were once home to those of anglo-saxon descent have become ghettos. theyve been shit on. what good is multiculturalism? is there ANY benefits to multiculturalism?

This was racist, and hypocritical. You claim every culture deserves respect, then go on about your anglo-saxon love nest was invaded by immigrants. Not respecting there culture.


i used the phrase 'gender role' in the context of romantic relationships. a better phrase to use on the whole is biological role. the simplest of gender differences could be mens superior physical strength, and womens empathy and nurturing abilities.

biology is sexist. civilization is sexist. a civilization founded on production is sexist. civilizations values man over woman for his ability to produce.

the modern liberal equality feminism is retarted. feminists argue for the conditions of women in the workplace. then women cry after being raped by men. why compete with men in the first place? men are not simply bastards for being rapists. they will do anything to compete, to win. men are power hungry. men are competitors. women are nurturers.

women will always be valued less by civilization. it is impossible for women to achieve equality inside capitalism-and that wouldnt be beneficial either.

Sexist. Also anti-womens liberty despite complaining about a lack of liberty above.


im attracted to a female. her kind spirit and gentle touch appeals to me. she is attracted to my intelligence, muscles, means to provide food, and ability to fend off other males. i love her in exchange for nurturing abilities-fixing my tie, dressing me properly when i look scruffy, teaching, disciplining our children. she loves me in exchange for my means to provide her and our family with food(the modern equiv of which is work) and my ability to physically protect her(a universal need persistant throughout history).

Selfish and sexist. Apparently your girlfriend is property not an equal.


disregarding biological characteristics will only retart our already retarted society.

Hypocritical, calling our society retarded when you claim all cultures demand respect.


my current gripe is the restrictions on exploration and adventure outside of civilization. the natural world is being destroyed in favour of endless production for useless people.. created for no reason..

Again hypocrisy and selfishness. Your just as useless and created for "no reason".
Of course there was a reason you were created, the genes that breed win. That's THE NATURAL WORLD, thus every facet of every living creature on this planet has been designed with one goal in mind, reproduce.
You can't complain about the natural world being destroyed and then complain about humans doing the most natural thing in the world reproducing. Reproduction is the natural world.


however... killing a large number of people, by whatever means neccessary, will solve many problems and be perhaps the final solution. afterwhich progress can begin

Murderous, you literally called for genocide on other peoples.
Of course i am amussing on this part, maybe you are calling for the genocide of your people too. But seeing your repeated selfishness makes this seem unlikely.


so you are useless to me as it stands.

Seeing as you want to kill me? I'd assume that goes without saying don't you?

[Module]

Ignore him. He's (most likely) trolling.

[Module]

Thread closed.