'I've never seen a problem that wouldn't be easier to solve with fewer people' [Archive]

Vanguard1917

15th April 2009, 15:37

Sir David Attenborough reckons that there are too many humans on Earth; this post from Climate Resistance (link (http://www.climate-resistance.org/)) thinks otherwise.

-----------------

Sir David Attenborough, the face and voice of quality BBC natural history programmes, controller of BBC2 during the ‘golden age’ of British television, national treasure, has become a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, the organisation that campaigns for reductions in the human population.

For a long time, Sir David refused to campaign on environmental matters, maintaining that he was there only to show the wonders of life on Earth. It was almost as if he credited audiences with the ability to draw their own conclusions.

Not any more. In his dotage, he has been trading on that trust. Take his closing remarks to his 2002 flagship BBC series The Life of Mammals:

Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it’s time to control the population to allow the survival of the environment.
In a statement, Sir David said:

I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more.
Perhaps we can be of assistance…

http://www.climate-resistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/large-hadron-collider-300x197.jpg (http://www.climate-resistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/large-hadron-collider.jpg)

How many cavemen does it take to build a Large Hadron Collider?

http://www.climate-resistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/golden-gate-300x240.jpg (http://www.climate-resistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/golden-gate.jpg)

Did few hands make light work of this?

http://www.climate-resistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/shuttle-213x300.jpg (http://www.climate-resistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/shuttle.jpg)

Was this just some garage project?

http://www.climate-resistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hgp-300x135.jpg (http://www.climate-resistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hgp.jpg)

How many cooks can it take to write a recipe book?

http://www.climate-resistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/obama_crowd1-300x199.jpg (http://www.climate-resistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/obama_crowd1.jpg)

It takes millions to make a president

http://www.climate-resistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/bastille-300x236.jpg (http://www.climate-resistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/bastille.jpg)

Or to break a monarch

http://www.climate-resistance.org/

bellyscratch

15th April 2009, 16:33

I've seen the comments he made before and its quite sad, especially as I'm a fan of his documentaries.

Although I consider myself to be in favour of an environmental movement, views such as this which link environmentalism to population control and making the poor suffer for the sake of the environment, is not the way for forward for the movement and I feel it is up to the us (the left) to demand that any attempts to stop environmental destruction is not, and doesn't have to be, at the cost of the working class.

bellyscratch

15th April 2009, 18:00

I've just seen this article in the guardian, which maybe helpful in disregarding the claim that overpopulation is causing ecological damage. Instead it blames the over consumption of the rich nations. Its obviously not an article written from a socialist perspective, but certain parts of it are useful I think.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/15/consumption-versus-population-environmental-impact

piet11111

15th April 2009, 18:36

let him build a pyramid or the great wall of china by himself hell he can even cheat and use modern equipment.
of course he would have to make the raw materials the Chinese or Egyptians could not buy it store made either.

Hoxhaist

15th April 2009, 21:12

the problem is over-consumption and lack of responsible use of resources not too many people

Vanguard1917

16th April 2009, 01:58

Instead it blames the over consumption of the rich nations.

I think that that's wrong, too, particulary if by 'overconsumers' it is referring to workers. The environmentalist idea that workers are consuming too much and that consumption levels need to be forced down through austerity policies is fundamentally reactionary.

apathy maybe

17th April 2009, 10:36

Wow, you guys are great. Actually go and look at the quote in context,

Sir David, who has become a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, the leading think tank in the UK concerned with the impact of population growth on the environment, said: “I’ve seen wildlife under mounting human pressure all over the world and it’s not just from human economy or technology - behind every threat is the frightening explosion in human numbers.

“I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more. That’s why I support the OPT, and I wish the environmental NGOs would follow their lead, and spell out this central problem loud and clear.”

Roger Martin, OPT chair, said: “We’re delighted that one of the world’s best known, liked and respected naturalists should have become our patron.

“All serious environmentalists know perfectly well that population growth, exploding in the 20th century, has been a key driver of every environmental problem. It’s a fact, not an opinion, that total human impact is the average per person multiplied by the number of people.
It is obvious that Mr Attenborough is talking about environmental problems. Not that Vanguard1917 cares about such things.

Indeed, I would suggest that "Climate Resistance" is deliberately confusing the issue, because they, like Vanguard1917, have a vested interest in seeing environmental issues never mentioned. Perhaps they have stock in oil companies?

Mind you, regarding population growth on its own, without reference to environmental problems, why is it such a good thing again? Why do we need more people?

I honestly don't understand why more people is considered a good thing (rather than a neutral thing). As soon as you start introducing other factors (such as depleted resources, environmental problems, war and fighting over resources (including oil and water)), then I suggest, you should (unless you have stock in oil companies or similar...) come to the conclusion that maybe less people could result in a high standard of living for all due to the resultant reduction of pressure on resources?

I.e.:
Fewer people = Fewer environmental problems.
Fewer people = More resources to go around.
Fewer environmental problems + More resources to go around = Higher standard of living for all.

Surely a higher standard of living for all is a good thing?

(It just occurs to me, who wants a higher birth rate? Companies that sell baby things such as nappies, baby clothing, milk formula etc.)

Vanguard1917

17th April 2009, 14:29

Wow, you guys are great. Actually go and look at the quote in context,

It is obvious that Mr Attenborough is talking about environmental problems. Not that Vanguard1917 cares about such things.

Your 'Mr Attenborough' is now the patron of the Optimum Population Trust -- a British campaign group which wants the British population more than halved and calls for 'zero net migration' to stop the British population from growing (link (http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.policies.html)).

As some of us on the left have been predicting for a good few years now, environmentalist justifications are more and more being used to legitimate reactionary attacks on the working class.

bellyscratch

17th April 2009, 14:50

apathy maybe

17th April 2009, 15:32

Your 'Mr Attenborough' is now the patron of the Optimum Population Trust -- a British campaign group which wants the British population more than halved and calls for 'zero net migration' to stop the British population from growing (link (http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.policies.html)).

As some of us on the left have been predicting for a good few years now, environmentalist justifications are more and more being used to legitimate reactionary attacks on the working class.

He's not my Mr Attenborough, I'm just not going to call him "Sir". And, regardless of his position, I thought you were talking about the quote.

The article you copied into your first post goes on about all these things, which were quite different to what the quote was about.

Regardless of his current political opinions, I would suggest that the quote:

I’ve never seen [an environmental] problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more.
Is quote correct.

As for, "environmentalist justifications are more and more being used to legitimate reactionary attacks on the working class." it might well be correct. Your trouble (or at least one of them) is that you assume that all environmentalism is the same. Yes, there might be some people who think that halving the British population, without regard to the rest of the world, to capitalism etc, is a good thing.

However, it doesn't change the fact (which you refuse to see), that some environmentalists do see the correct cause of most environmental problems today. Capitalism. Of course, you love capitalism, so you don't see it (or the environmental issues it causes) as a problem.

Anyway, I would be interested in your response to my equations:

Fewer people = Fewer environmental problems.
Fewer people = More resources to go around.
Fewer environmental problems + More resources to go around = Higher standard of living for all.
And also, do you want a higher population, if so, why?

Vanguard1917

17th April 2009, 15:54

The article you copied into your first post goes on about all these things, which were quite different to what the quote was about.

Regardless of his current political opinions, I would suggest that the quote:

Is quote correct.

It's not correct at all. And it also has deeply reactionary political implications -- as displayed by the policies and demands of Attenborough's organisation, the OPT.

Fewer people = Fewer environmental problems.
Fewer people = More resources to go around.
Fewer environmental problems + More resources to go around = Higher standard of living for all.

False. Human beings are not just 'problems', but are also problem-solvers. They're not just consumers, but are also producers.

Thus, the formula that more people equals more problems is based on falacy.

And also, do you want a higher population, if so, why?

I don't necessarily want a higher population. I want people to be free to have as many children as they wish, to be able to choose for themselves how they reproduce, and i want to see a world that can provide the best for billions.

apathy maybe

17th April 2009, 16:05

I've seen your explanations for the rest of your post before, and I thank you for your answer at least.

I'm also glad to see you are saying that you are effectively neutral on the issue of population growth or decline.

Do you think that,
"Fewer environmental problems + More resources to go around = Higher standard of living for all."
is true? Regardless of the number of people? Surely we can agree on this single line, even if we disagree on the previous lines...

Vanguard1917

17th April 2009, 16:42

Do you think that,
"Fewer environmental problems + More resources to go around = Higher standard of living for all."

You'd have to be more specific. How we can utilise natural resources to produce wealth is not fixed, but is constantly changing as a result of technological progress. For example, what stone represented as a natural resource for stone age societies is fundamentally different to what it represents for ours. There is perhaps less stone to 'go around' in a world populated by almost 7 billion than in a world populated by a few million (if we were to divide all stone on earth among all its inhabitants). But the way that we use stone as a resource has changed as society itself has changed. No one would claim that stone age people had a higher standard of living than us due to there being a greater abundance of stone back then.

The earth's resources aquire meaning through human society, specifically its level of economic and technological development; we can't meaningfully talk of resources as though they have a fixed, pre-given existence separate from social change. For instance, for the majority of societies throughout history, uranium and bauxite weren't considered resources. They became resources at a certain stage of historical and technological development. On the other hand, coal, which was considered a highly valuable resource in the past, is less and less considered as such today. The oceans were seen mainly as an obstacle by early human societies; today, as a result of historical development, they're seen less as a problem and more as a resource.

This is in contrast to the common Malthusian thesis which sees nature as fixed and human numbers as the key variable. According to that way of thinking, more people can mean nothing other than more problems.

Environmental problems also represent different challenges depending on the social and historical setting. In a rich, highly developed society, environmental problems (droughts, floods, earthquakes, diseases, and so on) are more likely to be overcome due to the fact that such societies have greater means of dealing with them. An impoverished, technologically backward society, on the other hand, is much more vulnerable to the destructive aspects of nature.

WhitemageofDOOM

19th April 2009, 08:38

I honestly don't understand why more people is considered a good thing (rather than a neutral thing).

I enjoy living, it is good. If living is good, more people living must be better.

come to the conclusion that maybe less people could result in a high standard of living for all due to the resultant reduction of pressure on resources?

I.e.:
Fewer people = Fewer environmental problems.
Fewer people = More resources to go around.
Fewer environmental problems + More resources to go around = Higher standard of living for all.

Surely a higher standard of living for all is a good thing?

Your forgetting economies of scale in this. Insufficient resources is not an issue in modern countries, as population increases our ability exploit natural resources increases non linearly, while our need/ability to consume increases linearly.
It's cheaper per person to feed 10,000 people than 1,000 people. 6 billion people will create more technological innovation than 6 million people.

Reducing the population would NOT increase standards of living but would reduce it.

Pogue

19th April 2009, 09:49

I've never seen a problem that wouldn't be easier to solve if we abolished capitalism.

Can I make my own nature documentary now?

apathy maybe

20th April 2009, 09:54

I enjoy living, it is good. If living is good, more people living must be better.

That's a very odd utilitarian argument, which, doesn't hold up.

Living is good for you. However, you can't extrapolate that to everyone. Needless to say, I disagree with your conclusion, finding it quite odd.

Your forgetting economies of scale in this. Insufficient resources is not an issue in modern countries, as population increases our ability exploit natural resources increases non linearly, while our need/ability to consume increases linearly.
It's cheaper per person to feed 10,000 people than 1,000 people. 6 billion people will create more technological innovation than 6 million people.

Reducing the population would NOT increase standards of living but would reduce it.
I also disagree with you on this argument. Yes, it is quite possible that it is cheaper, per person, to feed 10.000 people than 1.000 people. However, it doesn't follow that it is automatically cheaper, per person, to feed 6 billion, instead of 3 billion.

Even so, it is still cheaper over all to feed 1.000 people, than 10.000, and with advanced technology, it doesn't require much more effort. When you scale the numbers up, the differences would become even less.

WhitemageofDOOM

20th April 2009, 10:21

That's a very odd utilitarian argument, which, doesn't hold up.

Well, I am a utilitarian. That is to be expected.

Living is good for you. However, you can't extrapolate that to everyone.

If living sucks for someone(And it does, for countless people.) then the correct answer is to improve there life.

Needless to say, I disagree with your conclusion, finding it quite odd.

If you don't enjoy your existence, why not quit?
If you do enjoy existence, why wouldn't you want to share it with others?

However, it doesn't follow that it is automatically cheaper, per person, to feed 6 billion, instead of 3 billion.

Yes it does. Economies of scale don't randomly stop at some point.

Even so, it is still cheaper over all to feed 1.000 people, than 10.000, and with advanced technology, it doesn't require much more effort. When you scale the numbers up, the differences would become even less.

Our ability to produce things still functions as a multiplier on human labor. Thus the only valid comparison of labor requirements is in comparison to how much total we have, requiring less people to create food frees up people to do other things than merely provide for sustenance.

Coggeh

20th April 2009, 17:28

I.e.:
Fewer people = Fewer environmental problems.
Fewer people = More resources to go around.
Fewer environmental problems + More resources to go around = Higher standard of living for all.

You've got to be kidding me ?

By your logic if their were only 100 people around on the earth they would have golden yachts and mansions with an endless supply of any food .

The over population argument is total idiocy which even Marx debunked

Technocrat

20th April 2009, 18:31

Technocrat

20th April 2009, 18:38

It's cheaper per person to feed 10,000 people than 1,000 people. 6 billion people will create more technological innovation than 6 million people.Cheaper per person maybe, but not in total. You need to familiarize yourself with Jevon's Paradox, methinks. Just go on over to Wikipedia right now and read about it.

I enjoy living, it is good. If living is good, more people living must be better.Wow. Looks like you also need to read up on "the tragedy of the commons".

By that logic: I enjoy driving a car, it is good. If driving a car is good, more people driving cars must be better. (do I need to explain why more cars is a bad thing?)

or how about this: I enjoy having money, it is good. If having money is good, more people having more money must be better. (creating more money would just lead to inflation, so that the overall purchasing power of the individual remains unchanged).

or this: I enjoy having a house in the forest, it is good. If having a house in the forest is good, more people having more houses in the forest must be better. (creating more houses in the forest would eventually destroy the forest as you would eventually run out of space).

Vanguard1917

20th April 2009, 22:54

Actually, there are very definite limits to the number of humans which can be supported given available resources and a specified quality of life. Peer-reviewed research suggests that if we want everyone to have a decent life, that the maximum sustainable population would be less than 2 billion humans.

Source?

Have we forgotten that the doctrine of endless economic growth is the creation of CAPITALISTS?

While capitalist ideologues may like to pretend that their system can give way to 'endless growth', those of us who know better oppose capitalism precisely because we know that it stands in the way of endless economic growth.

Progressive anti-capitalists don't oppose capitalism because it creates too much economic growth; we oppose it for the opposite reason.

By that logic: I enjoy driving a car, it is good. If driving a car is good, more people driving cars must be better. (do I need to explain why more cars is a bad thing?)

Yes, you do.

or how about this: I enjoy having money, it is good. If having money is good, more people having more money must be better.

Not necessarily money, but more people having more material wealth would of course be a good thing.

Technocrat

21st April 2009, 00:24

(apologies for the spacing, I can't create links yet)

w w w . mnforsustain.org/erickson_d_determining_sustainable_population_leve ls.htm

dieoff .org/page99.htm

w w w .ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16050245

There are several sources for this kind of information. M. King Hubbert himself conducted a study several decades ago determining that 2 billion people would be the maximum sustainable population. I have since read several studies which confirm this. If you need more just get on google, this information is readily available to anyone willing to spend 5 minutes searching for it.

Do you have any sources supporting your idea that limitless growth is both possible and desirable, other than your opinions?

While capitalist ideologues may like to pretend that their system can give way to 'endless growth', those of us who know better oppose capitalism precisely because we know that it stands in the way of endless economic growth.

Progressive anti-capitalists don't oppose capitalism because it creates too much economic growth; we oppose it for the opposite reason.Define "endless economic growth". Nothing is endless, not even the Universe according to our current understanding of physics.

I can't believe I actually have to explain why more cars is a bad thing. This is seriously a first. Ok, here goes: More people driving more cars leads to both more pollution and more traffic, which is solved by building more roads. Then induced demand creeps in to restore traffic to socially tolerable levels, again increasing pollution and traffic, and the process repeats itself in an endless feedback loop. Understand?

Not necessarily money, but more people having more material wealth would of course be a good thingThat's great, but does nothing to address my point. My point still stands. You need to learn about the "tragedy of the commons", and "Jevon's paradox". Right now. Go to wikipedia immediately.

Vanguard1917

21st April 2009, 00:34

There are several sources for this kind of information. M. King Hubbert himself conducted a study several decades ago determining that 2 billion people would be the maximum sustainable population. I have since read several studies which confirm this. If you need more just get on google, this information is readily available to anyone willing to spend 5 minutes searching for it.

That's one guy who supported the Peak Oil theory and died in 1989. You argued that 'Peer-reviewed research suggests that if we want everyone to have a decent life, that the maximum sustainable population would be less than 2 billion humans.'

That's not what you've presented.

Define "endless economic growth".

If not 'endless', then at least much more economic growth than what we've had already.

To suggest that we have had too much economic growth, at a time when a third of the world's population does not even have access to a lightbulb let alone a car, clearly makes no sense.

More people driving more cars leads to both more pollution and more traffic, which is solved by building more roads. Then induced demand creeps in to restore traffic to socially tolerable levels, again increasing pollution and traffic, and the process repeats itself in an endless feedback loop. Understand?

What about cars that are more fuel-efficient and cleaner, and road infrastructure that is better designed?

More cars may indeed give way to more pollution. So may more houses with electricity, household electrical appliances and running water. That does not necessarily make them bad things.

Technocrat

21st April 2009, 01:37

That's one guy who supported the Peak Oil theory and died in 1989. You argued that 'Peer-reviewed research suggests that if we want everyone to have a decent life, that the maximum sustainable population would be less than 2 billion humans.'

That's not what you've presented.

Yeah, just one guy, what did he know :rolleyes:? Did you look at the links I provided? One of them is a government, peer-reviewed study.

If not 'endless', then at least much more economic growth than what we've had already.

To suggest that we have had too much economic growth, at a time when a third of the world's population does not even have access to a lightbulb let alone a car, clearly makes no sense.That is not the result of insufficient growth. We have more than enough already to satisfy everyone's wants, it just doesn't get distributed properly because of the use of a Price System. In fact we could greatly raise the standard of living for every person, while at the same time shrinking the economy.

What about cars that are more fuel-efficient and cleaner, and road infrastructure that is better designed?Jevon's Paradox. Have you read about it yet? Cars, houses, and virtually everything we buy today consumes fewer resources and is generally more efficient than similar products that existed 50 years ago. Why then is our total energy consumption many times higher than it was 50 years ago, if increasing efficiency is supposed to reduce total consumption?

More cars may indeed give way to more pollution. So may more houses with electricity, household electrical appliances and running water. That does not necessarily make them bad things.More pollution isn't bad? :confused: Houses, cars, appliances all perform specific functions. Cars move people around, but we could move people around with about ten times less energy if we had reliable and efficient mass transit systems. This increased efficiency would translate into a higher standard of living for everyone, as well as a more sustainable society. So, I do not buy at all the argument that pollution is necessary to increase quality of life.

Vanguard1917

21st April 2009, 01:42

That is not the result of insufficient growth. We have more than enough already to satisfy everyone's wants, it just doesn't get distributed properly because of the use of a Price System. In fact we could greatly raise the standard of living for every person, while at the same time shrinking the economy.

How?

Jevon's Paradox. Have you read about it yet? Cars, houses, and virtually everything we buy today consumes fewer resources and is generally more efficient than similar products that existed 50 years ago. Why then is our total energy consumption many times higher than it was 50 years ago, if increasing efficiency is supposed to reduce total consumption?

A wealthier world will likely consume more total energy than a poorer world, all else being equal. But that does not mean that energy is not being more efficiently used.

More pollution isn't bad? :confused:

Not necessarily. Not if it's giving way to higher standards of living for more people.

Of course we should try to reduce pollution levels. But reducing pollution is not an end in itself.

Technocrat

21st April 2009, 04:49

How?

Scarcity and abundance are both relative and subjective terms. Certain resources or items are scarce right now due to the inefficient use and re-use of those resources. If we change the way we use things we can have abundance for all, while reducing the amount of resources necessary to attain a good life. Take my above example with transportation.

Certain items are produced today specifically because they are wasteful of resources. Since they are wasteful of resources they are more costly. This is good for business but bad for consumers. The resource merchants profit and the manufacturers profit through the manufacture of shoddy goods and the use of planned obsolescence. Cars for example account for 1/5th of the average individual's income. Cars are one of the greatest abundance destroyers besides nuclear missiles. It is no coincidence that the auto industry is one of the largest industries in the world.

A wealthier world will likely consume more total energy than a poorer world, all else being equal. But that does not mean that energy is not being more efficiently used.That's what I've been saying all along: increased efficiency will increase, rather than decrease, total consumption of resouces (but this is true only of a Price System; a Technate would not have this problem).

Not necessarily. Not if it's giving way to higher standards of living for more people.

Of course we should try to reduce pollution levels. But reducing pollution is not an end in itself.Okay... doesn't pollution harm people, thereby greatly lowering their standard of living? Pollution is not only ugly, it also causes cancer, asthma, birth defects, and a host of other problems. If we can raise everyone's standard of living while lowering pollution levels and resource consumption, wouldn't this be the ideal?

Vanguard1917

21st April 2009, 16:10

Okay... doesn't pollution harm people, thereby greatly lowering their standard of living? Pollution is not only ugly, it also causes cancer, asthma, birth defects, and a host of other problems. If we can raise everyone's standard of living while lowering pollution levels and resource consumption, wouldn't this be the ideal?

Yes, that would be ideal. Reducing pollution levels while at the same time reducing living standards will not be ideal, however. Also, the more economically developed a society, the more resources that it has to deal with pollution levels, as well as with the health problems that you mention.

DesertShark

21st April 2009, 18:45

I think this needs to be brought back to the basics of: living things living on a piece of land. For any given piece of land (this can be extrapolated to the entire world or any size piece you want to use) there is a "carrying capacity."

What is "Carrying Capacity?"

Carrying capacity refers to the number of individuals who can be supported in a given area within natural resource limits, and without degrading the natural social, cultural and economic environment for present and future generations. The carrying capacity for any given area is not fixed. (http://www.gdrc.org/uem/footprints/carrying-capacity.html)
(I left out the rest of that paragraph on the page because it was getting to good/bad stuff and I wanted to leave this as objective as possible.)

The carrying capacity of a biological species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) in an environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_environment) is the population size of the species that the environment can sustain in the long term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_term), given the food, habitat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat), water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_water) and other necessities available in the environment. For the human population, more complex variables such as sanitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitation) and medical care are sometimes considered as part of the necessary infrastructure.
The carrying capacity could support a positive natural increase, or could require a negative natural increase. Thus, the carrying capacity is the number of individuals an environment can support without significant negative impacts to the given organism and its environment. Below carrying capacity, populations typically increase, while above, they typically decrease. A factor that keeps population size at equilibrium is known as a regulating factor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulating_factor). Population size decreases above carrying capacity due to a range of factors depending on the species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) concerned, but can include insufficient space, food supply (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security), or sunlight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight). The carrying capacity of an environment may vary for different species and may change over time due to a variety of factors, including: food availability, water supply (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply), environmental conditions and living space. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity)

the maximum, equilibrium number of organisms of a particular species that can be supported indefinitely in a given environment. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carrying%20capacity)

The number of animals a given area of land or water can support over time is called that area’s carrying capacity. (http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/wildlife/viewingguide/eco_carryingcapacity.htm)
If you need more sources, or actual books:
http://books.google.com/books?q=carrying+capacity&source=bll&ei=_gDuSbXdN8-GkAXczvylDw&sa=X&oi=book_group&resnum=11&ct=title&cad=bottom-3results
http://books.google.com/books?q=carrying+capacity&ei=_gDuSbXdN8-GkAXczvylDw&ct=title&lr=&sa=N&start=10

As a biologist you would think I learned about this concept in biology, but I didn't. I actually learned about it in a calculus class, it was accompanied by a graph similar to these:
http://carrier.pbwiki.com/f/carrying%20capacity.gif
http://www.biologycorner.com/resources/carrying_capacity_deer.gif

It is a real thing, that we can alter, but a real thing none the less. So I agree with the initial claim of overpopulation as a problem, just from a basic understanding of carrying capacity. Technological advances can increase the carrying capacity of an area for all animals, for some animals, or for only humans. However, technological advances can also decrease the carrying capacity of an area for all animals, for some animals, or for only humans. As species when we reach this level with the earth, we will see the swagger after the overshoot (just like in the graphs) and that time will definitely not be 'good' for everyone.

Someone earlier gave examples of things built by lots of people; I don't know if you've ever actually worked on a large project, but sometimes there are too many people and those people stand around with their thumbs up their butt not being helpful. In fact, its actually quite annoying to be working hard and having people stare at you because there is either nothing for them to do or they are too incompetent to find something to do that is helpful (if they're learning something from you, its a different situation). You probably didn't see this with the building of the pyramids because they used slave labor which you can effectively beat and/or kill if they are not working, so they probably found themselves something to do if there were too many people working.

Vanguard1917

21st April 2009, 20:43

It is a real thing, that we can alter, but a real thing none the less. So I agree with the initial claim of overpopulation as a problem, just from a basic understanding of carrying capacity.

The idea of 'carrying capacity' is fundamentally different when it concerns humans -- since we, unlike other animals, are capable of constantly changing our material surroundings, consciously, to make it better suited for human habitation. That is why predictions of 'natural limits' to human progress -- predictions which have, in one form or another, been around for hundreds of years -- have consistently been proven wrong.

DesertShark

22nd April 2009, 17:36

The idea of 'carrying capacity' is fundamentally different when it concerns humans -- since we, unlike other animals, are capable of constantly changing our material surroundings, consciously, to make it better suited for human habitation. That is why predictions of 'natural limits' to human progress -- predictions which have, in one form or another, been around for hundreds of years -- have consistently been proven wrong.
It is effected by different factors, but we are not immune to it. And yes we can change our surroundings, but we can't create or replenish most resources once they're used up (if we could there wouldn't be an oil crisis and the price of oil would drop tremendously). We might not be able to accurately predict what the exact carrying capacity is for us on a given piece of land, but that doesn't mean there isn't one and we will definitely know once we hit it.

ZeroNowhere

23rd April 2009, 10:51

if we could there wouldn't be an oil crisis and the price of oil would drop tremendously
You seem to be forgetting that this all depends on the profit motive, and, like food, creating scarcity of oil and keeping the price high is profitable.

Technocrat

24th April 2009, 22:49

Ok, so there's a profit motive. I don't think anyone will argue that. What you are suggesting is that scarcity of oil is entirely artificial to keep it profitable. This is false and is borderline paranoid conspiracy theory material. It is well established that oil is a finite resource which will eventually peak. Recent evidence suggests we have already hit that peak since production has not increased since 2005, but it is hard to tell for sure because of lowered demand due to the recession.

Coggeh

25th April 2009, 04:05

Technocrat

26th April 2009, 23:52

It was implied that the current high price of oil is due mainly to manipulation and not due to basic supply/demand issues.

You yourself just said it. OPEC certainly plays a role in the price of oil, but the basic issue is one of finite supply and endlessly growing demand. To try and attribute the price of oil entirely to OPEC ignores the basic operating characteristics of a price system. Two basic operating characteristics of any price system are growth and scarcity. Artificial scarcity is created in a number of ways, and OPEC is one of them. However, this explanation is incomplete and completely ignores the growth side of things. All price systems require growth. That growth is fueled by oil and other finite resources. You cannot have growth without the use of oil - in fact if you look at a graph of growth in GDP vs. growth in use of oil, they follow virtually the same line. Peak oil explains what happens when finite supply encounters endlessly growing demand.

The price of everything is artificial, because price is itself a construct with no basis in physical reality, based upon abstract concepts of value. What is being implied is that the price of oil is entirely artificial, and if we could just get rid of those greedy capitalists that there would be vast quantities of oil that they have been hiding from us. This is simply untrue, but is clearly a popular theory among populists and conspiracy theorists. In fact, geological estimates of recoverable oil have changed little in several decades.

pastradamus

4th May 2009, 17:19

I dont see where the fuss is coming from. Overpopulation is a big problem in some parts of the world. This is down to religion in a way but also cultural practices. Two Example, the catholic church outlawing condoms in third-world countries like El Salvador and Families in India & Pakistan who keep having children until they successfully have a Boy.

Vanguard1917

4th May 2009, 23:13

I dont see where the fuss is coming from. Overpopulation is a big problem in some parts of the world.

Wrong. Poverty is the problem, not the existence of 'third world' people.

butterfly

8th May 2009, 08:36

VG I'm not sure if your old enough to remember the banning of CFCs in the 80's. May I ask if you grew up without a fridge?

DesertShark

9th May 2009, 14:56

Wrong. Poverty is the problem, not the existence of 'third world' people.
Ummmm...overpopulation is the/a problem, it dramatically increases the effects of poverty; ie. when an impoverished area is overpopulated: being impoverished there's already a strain on resources, then if you add more people (I'm not just talking about people having more children, I'm talking about looking at two situations), it puts even more strain on the resources which will either cause people to leave or some people will die. I don't believe the poster you were referring to in this post was making the claim that the problem is "the existence of 'third world' people". People in 1st world nations using more resources then they need and taking those resources from other countries (by that I mean not from their own country) is a problem. It reduces the resources already available --> the original owners of the land to be impoverished, and if there's a large population there the effects are worse.

Vanguard1917

9th May 2009, 17:54

Ummmm...overpopulation is the/a problem, it dramatically increases the effects of poverty; ie. when an impoverished area is overpopulated: being impoverished there's already a strain on resources, then if you add more people (I'm not just talking about people having more children, I'm talking about looking at two situations), it puts even more strain on the resources which will either cause people to leave or some people will die.

That's false because it implies that people are mere consumers of resources. In reality, people don't just consume but also produce. They don't just have stomachs to feed and backs to clothe, but they also posses brains and hands with which to create wealth and solve problems. Therefore, the Malthusian notion that 'more people equals more problems' is based on fallacious logic.

Also, according to such logic, we don't need revolutionary change at all. We can solve, or at least ease, poverty by reducing human numbers; transforming the status quo is unnecessary. That's always been the logical implication of the Malthusian outlook and, as such, it has always served to provide apologism for capitalism's inadequacies. It's highly conservative because, instead of criticising capitalism for failing to provide the best for all, it argues that there are too many to be provided for in the first place. Thus it lets the system off the hook and shifts the blame on to the masses themselves.

It is effected by different factors, but we are not immune to it. And yes we can change our surroundings, but we can't create or replenish most resources once they're used up (if we could there wouldn't be an oil crisis and the price of oil would drop tremendously).

But, again, this assumes that the way that we utilise resources is somewhat static. In reality, it is the opposite: it's subject to constant change. The way we used a resource -- say, coal -- a hundred years ago tends to be fundamentally different to the way that we use it today. As a result of technological advances, we have been able to both utilise coal more efficiently and discover new and more efficient ways to produce energy from other sources (e.g. uranium). The same goes for other aspects of industrial and agricultural production.

Technocrat

9th May 2009, 18:47

That's false because it implies that people are mere consumers of resources. In reality, people don't just consume but also produce. They don't just have stomachs to feed and backs to clothe, but they also posses brains and hands with which to create wealth and solve problems. Therefore, the Malthusian notion that 'more people equals more problems' is based on fallacious logic.This statement is false because it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. People do not create resources because in all situations matter is neither created nor destroyed. Matter only changes forms. What is happening in reality is that people are taking matter in one form (resources) and converting it into a form that can be used by people (goods). People do not make resources, this is simply false as it would imply that people can create matter.

Also, according to such logic, we don't need revolutionary change at all. We can solve, or at least ease, poverty by reducing human numbers; transforming the status quo is unnecessary. That's always been the logical implication of the Malthusian outlook and, as such, it has always served to provide apologism for capitalism's inadequacies. It's highly conservative because, instead of criticising capitalism for failing to provide the best for all, it argues that there are too many to be provided for in the first place. Thus it lets the system off the hook and shifts the blame on to the masses themselves.This is completely backwards. The vast majority of capitalists reject Malthus's theories and embrace the doctrine of more growth, both physical and economical, because growth is a necessary characteristic of the Price System. Most people who do accept Malthus's basic premise accept that changing the system is necessary in order to both humanely reduce population and maintain a good quality of life, unless they are doomers who believe that there is no solution. So it is precisely because we need to reduce population that a different system is required.

But, again, this assumes that the way that we utilise resources is somewhat static. In reality, it is the opposite: it's subject to constant change. The way we used a resource -- say, coal -- a hundred years ago tends to be fundamentally different to the way that we use it today. As a result of technological advances, we have been able to both utilise coal more efficiently and discover new and more efficient ways to produce energy from other sources (e.g. uranium). The same goes for other aspects of industrial and agricultural production.I'll repeat this again: Jevon's paradox states that increasing efficiency only increases the rate at which a resource is consumed, because of a capitalist system which encourages a growing population to consume more things, even if those things are completely unnecessary. We do use coal much more efficiently today than we did 100 years ago. We also consume probably 100 times more coal today than we did 100 years ago, due to the aforementioned paradox.

Physical growth is a fundamental requirement of any price system. This includes our current capitalist system.

I thought I would reply for the benefit of others reading this thread, since It seems that nothing I say will get through to you.

Vanguard1917

9th May 2009, 23:47

This statement is false because it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. People do not create resources because in all situations matter is neither created nor destroyed. Matter only changes forms. What is happening in reality is that people are taking matter in one form (resources) and converting it into a form that can be used by people (goods). People do not make resources, this is simply false as it would imply that people can create matter.

I didn't say that people 'make' natural resources; i said that they constantly learn to utilise them more effectively.

This is completely backwards.

Why? If poverty can be solved or alleviated by reducing the human population, why would we need revolutionary change to fight poverty?

Most people who do accept Malthus's basic premise accept that changing the system is necessary in order to both humanely reduce population and maintain a good quality of life

As a socialist i don't just want to 'change the system'. I want to change to a better, more advanced system, one that can provide the best for billions.

Calling for a system which will enforce even greater fetters upon economic development than capitalism currently does is not progressive from the socialist point of view. In fact, it is among the purest definitions of reactionary from our perspective.

I'll repeat this again: Jevon's paradox states that increasing efficiency only increases the rate at which a resource is consumed, because of a capitalist system which encourages a growing population to consume more things, even if those things are completely unnecessary

Like what?

Far from encouraging too much mass consumption (!), the problem with capitalism is that it restrains mass consumption levels. It keeps the masses locked in poverty and forbids them access to the best that society has to offer. The idea that people 'overconsume' under capitalism is simply absurd to anyone who has any consciousness of the conditions of life for working class people under the capitalist system .

Technocrat

10th May 2009, 04:16

I didn't say that people 'make' natural resources; i said that they constantly learn to utilise them more effectively.

Now you are just trying to cover your tracks. DesertShark made the (obvious) observation that an impoverished area is made worse by overpopulation because the limited resources in that area will be consumed faster by a larger group of people. You responded by saying the following:

That's false because it implies that people are mere consumers of resources. In reality, people don't just consume but also produce. What is this supposed to imply, if not that people can produce resources? If you are just talking about increased efficiency, that is not an answer to what DesertShark said because of the problem of Jevon's Paradox.

Why? If poverty can be solved or alleviated by reducing the human population, why would we need revolutionary change to fight poverty?I have already explained this. First of all, the important thing is not that poverty can be solved or alleviated by reducing human population (although reducing population is necessary if we want to reduce poverty), it's more like "if we don't reduce human population, millions will die from starvation, warfare over scarce resources, treatable diseases, etc." Secondly, capitalism, like all price systems, has as one of its fundamental characteristics the need for physical growth. In reality, there is no economic growth without physical growth, so when you say "more economic growth" you are suggesting that what we need is more physical growth. You are suggesting that we need more physical growth in order to alleviate poverty and provide everyone with a high standard of living. This is false. We could give to everyone on this continent a standard of living much higher than that of the average person today, while at the same time reducing our total consumption of resources - in other words, negative growth. This is what Technocracy's plan is all about.

As a socialist i don't just want to 'change the system'. I want to change to a better, more advanced system, one that can provide the best for billions.I was talking about changing to a different system that would be better, obviously. Your "better system that can provide for billions" is based more on ideology and wishful thinking than actual scientific data. How are you going to provide for billions? Until you have any research indicating that it's even possible, its just a pipe dream, speculation. You keep talking about this system that can provide for billions, but you cannot answer how you can do this. How? Scientific research into this area suggests that we could sustain 2 billion people indefinitely, and even at that level we would have to reduce our consumption of resources. This doesn't mean that our quality of life has to suffer, but that is precisely what our Capitalist propagandists would have you believe. There is so much waste built into the price system that if we just eliminated it, we could have plenty for all. At a suburban American lifestyle, you could only support around 0.5 billion, using ecological footprint analysis.

Calling for a system which will enforce even greater fetters upon economic development than capitalism currently does is not progressive from the socialist point of view. In fact, it is among the purest definitions of reactionary from our perspective.Economic development means physical development. Physical development is precisely what needs to be controlled, so that people can benefit rather than businesses. The rest of your paragraph is an opinion.

Like what?

Far from encouraging too much mass consumption (!), the problem with capitalism is that it restrains mass consumption levels. It keeps the masses locked in poverty and forbids them access to the best that society has to offer. The idea that people 'overconsume' under capitalism is simply absurd to anyone who has any consciousness of the conditions of life for working class people under the capitalist system .I've already pointed out the flaw in this line of thought. People do not need to consume more to have a better life. People could have a better life, in actual material terms, while at the same time consuming less. So it is true that people "overconsume" in a price system: they are forced to consume more resources than is necessary for them to attain their quality of life.

I'm not sure how much longer I'll keep responding to this thread, as It's becoming clear that you aren't really interesting in a truly open-minded discussion, but just want to push some strange dogma that you seem to have come up with yourself.

Vanguard1917

10th May 2009, 13:26

Now you are just trying to cover your tracks. DesertShark made the (obvious) observation that an impoverished area is made worse by overpopulation because the limited resources in that area will be consumed faster by a larger group of people. You responded by saying the following:
Quote:
That's false because it implies that people are mere consumers of resources. In reality, people don't just consume but also produce.
What is this supposed to imply, if not that people can produce resources? If you are just talking about increased efficiency, that is not an answer to what DesertShark said because of the problem of Jevon's Paradox.

It means that it's incorrect to view people as mere consumers of society's wealth, because people are also producers of wealth (i didn't mean to imply that people 'create' natural resources). Therefore, the Malthusian notion that more people will inevitably make existing problems worse is false.

it's more like "if we don't reduce human population, millions will die from starvation, warfare over scarce resources, treatable diseases, etc."

And such Malthusian dire predictions have been around for hundreds of years, and they have always proved to be wrong.

Problems like human hunger, disease, and war are caused by capitalism -- they're not caused by the very existence of the masses, which your Malthusian thesis essentially implies.

As i previously pointed out, by shifting blame away from the system and on to the masses, Malthusianism has always served to provide apologism for capitalism.

Your "better system that can provide for billions" is based more on ideology and wishful thinking than actual scientific data. How are you going to provide for billions?

Through progress in the productive forces of society, something which you have already stated that we don't need since you believe that living standards can be raised simply by reducing human numbers.

Economic development means physical development. Physical development is precisely what needs to be controlled, so that people can benefit rather than businesses.

Yes, it's 'physical growth' of the economy -- i.e. the development of the productive forces of society -- along with socialist distribution, that's going to allow us to provide the best for the entire world population.

I've already pointed out the flaw in this line of thought. People do not need to consume more to have a better life. People could have a better life, in actual material terms, while at the same time consuming less.

So what goods and services should working class people be forced to consume less of?

Technocrat

10th May 2009, 22:36

It means that it's incorrect to view people as mere consumers of society's wealth, because people are also producers of wealth (i didn't mean to imply that people 'create' natural resources). Therefore, the Malthusian notion that more people will inevitably make existing problems worse is false.Wrong. Malthus never suggested "more people will inevitably make existing problems worse". What he suggested is that for a given set of technology and resources that there is a definite limit to the number of humans that can be supported in a given area, and that exceeding that limit will cause problems. This is a scientific fact.

Through progress in the productive forces of society, something which you have already stated that we don't need since you believe that living standards can be raised simply by reducing human numbers.This isn't a plan, this is just vague speculation. This seems to be a problem with a lot of Socialists. You can't just say you have a better system, you have to actually show us this system. You can't just say you have a system capable of feeding billions, you have to actually show us the math and science that will prove it. This is what Technocracy did. Technocracy started with the goal of determining how to provide the best standard of living to all citizens that was indefinitely sustainable. It then went about conducting a scientific survey of all the resources we have available on this continent, to determine what our consumption levels could be. Then it became possible to design a plan around that. Technocracy isn't interested in vague speculation, it is interested in concrete plans that will work. Until you say how exactly you are going to accomplish your system that will feed billions, it will remain speculation. I also never said that living standards can be raised by "simply reducing human numbers". Where exactly are you getting this? It seems that you have set up a false dichotomy. Either we raise living standards with more growth, or we have less growth and lower living standards. This is a false dichotomy, as I have already pointed out that there are alternatives. Also, increasing productivity is not the same thing as increasing economic growth. Just something to think about.

Really, when you say that you can feed billions by "progress in the productive forces of society" what you are really saying is "maybe with improved technology that does not exist yet except in the realm of speculation, we can continue to have indefinite growth." This is not a plan, this is wishful thinking.

It is a joke that you continue to associate Malthus with capitalism. Do you even understand how capitalism works? Corporations need graphs of ever upward trending lines in order to keep their investors happy. This means that they need growth. Why would they support a thesis which essentially says that more growth is bad, when they need growth in order to survive as a business? Are you ever going to get this? I honestly am ready to give up on this one.

Yes, it's 'physical growth' of the economy -- i.e. the development of the productive forces of society -- along with socialist distribution, that's going to allow us to provide the best for the entire world population.What I am saying, and this is a fact, is that we already consume more resources than is necessary to provide the best for the entire population. We can do more with less. You just keep parroting the same line over and over again, you have not addressed anything that I have said. What point is there in increasing our levels of resource consumption if everyone can have a better life while at the same time reducing the amount of resources consumed, waste produced, and pollution generated? You seem to think that it is impossible to raise living standards without increasing resource consumption, waste, and pollution. This is a false dichotomy as I have attempted to point out several times.

So what goods and services should working class people be forced to consume less of? Obviously you still don't understand. I have already been over this several times. People don't have to go without any goods and services if we eliminate the waste which is built into the price system. If we just get rid of the intentional waste built into the price system, those resources which would otherwise be wasted can instead be redistributed to raise the living standard of everyone. The price system is inherently wasteful, so that the amount of resources needed to produce a good or service is many times higher than is actually necessary.

I am tired of repeating myself, so this is the last reply I will post to this thread, unless I see an original, thought-out response to the points that I have raised. It's been good talking to you, I guess.

Vanguard1917

11th May 2009, 20:16

Wrong. Malthus never suggested "more people will inevitably make existing problems worse". What he suggested is that for a given set of technology and resources that there is a definite limit to the number of humans that can be supported in a given area, and that exceeding that limit will cause problems. This is a scientific fact.

Malthus argued that problems like human hunger are caused by there being too many people. Nineteenth century radicals like Karl Marx, on the other hand, pointed out that such problems are related to the way that society is organised, not to any absolute inability to satisfy human needs. Marx was a revolutionary who believed that social transformation was necessary to solve humanity's problems. Malthus, the clergyman, argued that the problem was not the social system but the very existence of the masses themselves.

Of course, Malthusian predictions have over and again proved to be immensely incorrect. That's what you've ignored.

Really, when you say that you can feed billions by "progress in the productive forces of society" what you are really saying is "maybe with improved technology that does not exist yet except in the realm of speculation

Not at all. No speculation about future technology is necessary in order to point out the simple fact that we are already able to produce more than enough food to feed the world with our current technology and methods.

Again, it's the way that food production and distribution is organised under capitalism which creates food shortages -- not any absolute failure to produce food.

It is a joke that you continue to associate Malthus with capitalism.

Why? As i have pointed out, the Malthusian logic is inherently conservative. By arguing that problems like hunger and war are caused not by the system but by the very existence of the masses, it provides ideological defence for the status quo.

Technocrat

12th May 2009, 20:42

This is pointless, but I thought I would share this for the benefit of others. It is capitalism that requires growth and therefore capitalists who defend more growth, not less. I really can't believe that this is even being argued. If you look at the track record over the course of the last 100 years, it is capitalists who consistently argue for more growth.

Marx himself recognized that it is capitalism, not communism, that requires growth:

"According to Marx, in a capitalist society economic reproduction is conditional on capital accumulation. If workers fail to produce more capital, economic reproduction begins to break down. Therefore, economic reproduction in capitalist society is necessarily expanded reproduction and requires market growth. Capital must grow, otherwise the process breaks down. Thus, economic growth is not simply desirable, but also absolutely necessary in capitalism."

(http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Reproduction_economics_-_Economic_reproduction_in_capitalism/id/5416107)

Not at all. No speculation about future technology is necessary in order to point out the simple fact that we are already able to produce more than enough food to feed the world with our current technology and methods.All you can do is keep saying that "we can do this, we can do this." You never say how.

This is called dogma.

Until you can come up with good evidence to support your claims, they are merely your opinions.

Good evidence is not one or two studies that go against the mainstream.

Science works by consensus.

A scientific fact is the close agreement between many thousands of different observations.

One or two people does not make a scientific fact.

The majority of scientists who study this subject, conclude that the earth is already overpopulated if everyone is to live a first world lifestyle. This is what they teach in the textbooks. So, if you are going to go against that you better come armed with some pretty good evidence. But you don't have it.

Vanguard1917

12th May 2009, 21:44

This is pointless, but I thought I would share this for the benefit of others. It is capitalism that requires growth and therefore capitalists who defend more growth, not less. I really can't believe that this is even being argued. If you look at the track record over the course of the last 100 years, it is capitalists who consistently argue for more growth.

Marx himself recognized that it is capitalism, not communism, that requires growth:

Absolutely not. That's obviously hugely incorrect. The very reason that Marx argued that socialist revolution becomes a material necessity was precisely that capitalism reaches a stage where it can no longer develop the means of production of society. Marx explained that capitalism requires growth if it is to survive. But, Marx argued, at a certain stage of its development capitalism raises its own barriers to economic growth and struggles to overcome them. Capitalist relations of production become a fetter upon the development of the means of production of society. A higher mode of production -- one that will free economic productivity from the barriers that are placed upon it by capitalism -- necessitates the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist order.

All you can do is keep saying that "we can do this, we can do this." You never say how.

I already made that clear. You argued that we cannot produce enough food to feed billions. I pointed out that, actually, we already possess the capacity to produce food to feed billions, with our current abilities. As it is widely known, hunger today is not caused by any absolute failure to produce enough food, but by poverty.

Far from it being me who is speculating about future developments, it is in fact yourself. By arguing that population growth will cause future food shortages, mass starvation and wars, you are engaging in nothing other than pure speculation about future developments. This is because you have no evidence that Malthusian predictions have ever taken place in the real world, in a place outside of your own imagination. All that you're able to do is make baseless and hysterical doom-mongering predictions about the future.

counterblast

12th May 2009, 22:18

Vanguard;

Nearly none of the pictures/comments you posted seem to support your theory.

The construction of the Golden Gate bridge was built to ease traffic congestion, which seems to be a circular argument.

It didn't take 6 billion people to build a space shuttle.

It didn't take 6 billion people to theorize/discover modern biology, quite the contrary, a very small segment of the human population has defined modern biology.

Uneducated people choosing a capitalist leader en masse, seems to be a communist analysis for why reproduction is a bad idea.

Overthrowing a monarch is a terrible argument as well; because less population worldwide presumably means there will also be less soldiers to fight on the side of the monarch...

Also,

Your Large Hadron Collider example pitted modern scientists against "a few cavemen"... which seems an awful lot like a straw man comparison.

Vanguard1917

12th May 2009, 22:26

It didn't take 6 billion people to build a space shuttle.

It didn't take 6 billion people to theorize/discovery modern biology.

That's right, because a mass of humanity still lives in dire poverty and struggles daily to merely survive. Imagine the possibilities for humanity if such lost potential didn't exist and every single human being had the opportunity to work on such incredible projects worldwide...

counterblast

12th May 2009, 22:49

That's right, because a mass of humanity still lives in dire poverty and struggles daily to merely survive. Imagine the possibilities for humanity if such lost potential didn't exist and every single human being had the opportunity to work on such incredible projects worldwide...

Nevermind that overpopulation is a huge contributor to poverty in the Middle East, Western and Northern Africa, South/Central America and Southeast Asia, so fixing poverty by adding an unlimited population to consume limited resources is completely illogical, from just about any theoretical stand point but a nihilistic one.

Its also important to point out that larger populations just make such inventions less beneficial to the masses. A space shuttle is more likely to benefit 6000 people (who have a realistic chance of getting to utilise it), than 6 billion. Furthermore, as you pointed out in the Obama example; larger masses tend to be less able to critically communicate with each other, very possibly making the task of figuring out and agreeing upon the science needed to build all the components of a space shuttle, and combining them into one complex machine, next to impossible.

Vanguard1917

12th May 2009, 22:57

Nevermind that overpopulation is a huge contributor to poverty in the Middle East, Western and Northern Africa, South/Central America and Southeast Asia...

Evidence?

I would have thought that poverty caused by capitalism is the problem in those places, not the very existence of the masses there. Poor people aren't responsible for their poverty; the system is at fault.

Its also important to point out that larger populations just make such inventions less beneficial to the masses. A space shuttle is more likely to benefit 6000 people (who have a realistic chance of getting to utilise it), than 6 billion.

Yes, but what if instead of one space shuttle programme we have one hundred or more?

The point is that the vast majority of human talent on earth goes un-utilised, because the majority of humanity remains locked in poverty under capitalism.

Furthermore, as you pointed out in the Obama example; larger masses tend to be less able to critically communicate with each other, very possibly making the task of figuring out and agreeing upon the science needed to build all the components of a space shuttle, and combining them into one complex machine, next to impossible.

Why? That sounds like a very anti-socialist, undemocratic argument to me.

counterblast

13th May 2009, 00:31

Evidence?

I would have thought that poverty caused by capitalism is the problem in those places, not the very existence of the masses there. Poor people aren't responsible for their poverty; the system is at fault.

Much of the world's poverty is caused by capitalism, but that isn't the only cause of poverty. Overpopulation, physical geography, and misutilization of resources play a huge role in poverty, also. Even socialist societies often suffer from proverty for reasons completely unrelated to global capital; you seem to be under the misunderstanding that a socialist society is a utopian one, and that all of the worlds problems will simply vanish if we implement socialism; but the world is much more complex than that.

Yes, but what if instead of one space shuttle programme we have one hundred or more?I addressed the impracticality of that in my original post.

Why? That sounds like a very anti-socialist, undemocratic argument to me.Democracy and socialism have absolutely nothing in common. Socialism is about mutual aid and consensus in respect to the oppressed, while democracy is about majorities dictating the rights of minority groups.

Technocrat

13th May 2009, 02:54

I already made that clear. You argued that we cannot produce enough food to feed billions. I pointed out that, actually, we already possess the capacity to produce food to feed billions, with our current abilities. As it is widely known, hunger today is not caused by any absolute failure to produce enough food, but by poverty.Yes, you have "pointed that out" repeatedly without any supporting evidence, making your statement dogma, and making you an ideologue for your blind adherence to it.

" dogma

One entry found.

Main Entry:dog·ma http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?dogma001.wav=dogma%27)Pronunciation: \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\ Function:noun Inflected Form(s):plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?dogma002.wav=dogmata%27) \-mə-tə\ Etymology:Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem — more at decent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decent)Date:1638 1 a: something held as an established opinion ; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church"

There is plenty of evidence supporting my argument, and I have provided links to just a few studies, of which there are hundreds available.

I have seen primary school children who have a better grasp of these concepts than you do. Did you know that they teach that overpopulation is a real problem starting in primary school, all the way up through college? Are you going to now try to argue that universities are hotbeds of conservative capitalism?

This is just ridiculous. I'm done here.

Lynx

13th May 2009, 05:28

A look at per capita energy consumption indicates that we should do more with less. Greater efficiency is as effective a strategy as increased energy production. When environmental damage is taken into account, efficiency becomes the preferred strategy.

Smokestack communism is a relic of the past. We don't have fusion technology or the luxury of continuing our energy wasting ways.

Vanguard1917

13th May 2009, 21:41

Much of the world's poverty is caused by capitalism, but that isn't the only cause of poverty. Overpopulation, physical geography, and misutilization of resources play a huge role in poverty, also.

Can you or can't you back up your claim that 'overpopulation is a huge contributor to poverty in the Middle East, Western and Northern Africa, South/Central America and Southeast Asia...'?

Democracy and socialism have absolutely nothing in common.

Then obviously we have very different definitions of socialism.

Yes, you have "pointed that out" repeatedly without any supporting evidence, making your statement dogma, and making you an ideologue for your blind adherence to it.

I don't know what you're trying to doubt here. It is common knowledge that we produce more food than is necessary to meet the calorie requirements of everyone on earth. I did a quick search on google, which returned a lot of info, including this article from World Socialist Movement (http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/how_we_could_feed.php), from a few years back, explaining not only that we have more than enough food to feed the world, but also that food production per person has actually increased as the population has.

It is a fact that enough food to feed the world is currently produced. 300 kg of grain per head is currently produced worldwide each year. 200 kg of grain contains the calories needed by an adult per year. (Grain is widely used as a measure of food production as it supplies more than half humanity's calories.)

The 5.8 billion people in the world today have, on average, 15 percent more food per person than the global population, of 4 billion people, had 20 years ago.(4)

The world today produces enough grain to provide 3500 calories per person (this estimate does not include vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meets, fish.)(23)

Zurdito

14th May 2009, 04:19

I am partly with V1917 on this one. The idea that socialists should be spending their time sitting in a study comming up with mathematical equations to show exactly how communism will work just reminds of the whole "Tobin Tax" project and all kinds of other strange academic wet dreams.

Socialists fight to unte and elevate existing popular struggles, that is how we believe the world's problems will be solved, by a transference of control of the means of production to the masses, so that they themselves can decide how to use these and how to develop them.

To pretend that today a tiny group of technocrats ont he internet can plan out the future mode of production of society is pretty hilarious. Even if you could, you have no social force to enforce it, other than appelaing to enlgihtened leaders to hand you the reins of power.

A revolution means eliminating social classes so that society can democratically control and develop the MOP for its own ends. A future socialist society may face its own concrete problems about ability to support certain numbers of people and what living standards it can attain. However under capitalism today, each human could be fed, clothed and hosued adequately with existing levels of scientific ability, and as V1917 points out, as these conditions improve, each of thse same humans becomes more able to generate further improvement in the means of production which make it easier to support more people with less work. This is called progress and is a basic concept of revolutionaries.

NB this does not mean popluation can or must increase forever. I will leave it to the technocrats to dictate to humanity how many humans are allowed to exist etc. All I am saying is that today, overpopulation is only an issue if we accept capitalist parameters, and not if the masses acquire the ability to use that surplus (3% year on year exponential growth from the industrial revolution to today, according to David Harvey) for their own benefit.

Agrippa

14th May 2009, 04:19

Not necessarily. Not if it's giving way to higher standards of living for more people.

How is dying from cancer a "higher standard of living"?

It is completely telling that defenders of population-growth are citing the accomplishment of bourgeois material accumulation (space-shuttles, the large hadron collider, the capitalist colonization of the genetic code, etc.) and the excesses of past patriarchal civilizations (eg: the Great Wall of China, the Pyramids of Giza) as arguments in favor of an excessively large human population.

Progressive anti-capitalists don't oppose capitalism because it creates too much economic growth; we oppose it for the opposite reason.

Be that as it may regarding self-dentified "progressive anti-capitalists", capitalism is not just an economic relationship but a set of social values.

Yes, right-wing environmentalists like Attenburough use concerns of overpopulation to advocate genocidal "immigration" policies. That still doesn't change the fact that six billion people eating, shitting, and breathing has a massive impact on the Earth, much less six billion proplr living the excessively decadent lifestyle that even some proles lead much less the average bourgeoisie....

It is a cop-out to say that the obvious crisis caused by the Earth's current human population will be inevidably solved in the near future by human beings' "cleverness" and "abilitity to adapt". You are a human being. Use your cleverness and ability to adapt right now to figure out what to do with six billion people's shit, how to feed them, how to give them all energy to power the automobiles, microwave ovens, blenders, cellphones, PCs, etc. they're all going to get after the communisation of industrial society....

Technocrat

14th May 2009, 07:32

I don't know what you're trying to doubt here. It is common knowledge that we produce more food than is necessary to meet the calorie requirements of everyone on earth. I did a quick search on google, which returned a lot of info, including this article from World Socialist Movement (http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/how_we_could_feed.php), from a few years back, explaining not only that we have more than enough food to feed the world, but also that food production per person has actually increased as the population has.That's fantastic, but all that study does is point out how we can currently feed our current population. That would be like if I looked at the current reserves of oil, determined that it was enough to meet worldwide demand today, and then concluded that oil will be plentiful forever. That study does nothing to address the problem of depleted nitrogen and phosphorous reserves, lost topsoil and depleted aquifers, which will soon make it impossible to feed everyone, much less a growing population. Then you have the problem of climate change on top of that which will reduce crop yields, compounding the problem.

Have you ever heard of Hubris?

What you have claimed and insinuated repeatedly is that it would be possible to feed an infinitely growing population with a finite amount of resources. Your study does not support that.

Once again, no dice.

Technocrat

14th May 2009, 07:40

To pretend that today a tiny group of technocrats ont he internet can plan out the future mode of production of society is pretty hilarious. Even if you could, you have no social force to enforce it, other than appelaing to enlgihtened leaders to hand you the reins of power.

Do you understand how Technocracy works? This statement leads me to believe that you have little actual knowledge regarding the subject. I can help you to understand if you like.

A revolution means eliminating social classes so that society can democratically control and develop the MOP for its own ends. A future socialist society may face its own concrete problems about ability to support certain numbers of people and what living standards it can attain. However under capitalism today, each human could be fed, clothed and hosued adequately with existing levels of scientific ability, and as V1917 points out, as these conditions improve, each of thse same humans becomes more able to generate further improvement in the means of production which make it easier to support more people with less work. This is called progress and is a basic concept of revolutionaries.What scientific evidence do you have that each human could be fed, clothed, and housed adequately? Just a quick analysis of ecological footprint data shows that if everyone was to live a modest first world life style (in terms of resource consumption), that we could only support 2 billion. I say in terms of resource consumption, because if we re-structured our society we could provide a much better life to everyone than is even possible today, while at the same time reducing our resource consumption by the amount required. I've said this repeatedly. If you are unfamiliar with ecological footprint here are some tools to help you get started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint
http://www.earthday.net/footprint/

According to EF data, if the entire world were raised to the average American standard of living, less than 1.5 billion could be supported sustainably with today's technology. This seems to fly in the face of both Vanguard1917s "study" as well as Zurdito's assertion.

Sure, you might be able to feed the world population with today's technology for a few years, but what good is that? What we should be interested in is a society which provides the best for all and is also sustainable. In other words, Technocracy.

14th May 2009, 18:40

(It just occurs to me, who wants a higher birth rate? Companies that sell baby things such as nappies, baby clothing, milk formula etc.)

Or, capitalist companies that make anything.

The only way to stave off the natural tendency of the rate of profit to decline as the ratio of fixed (dead) capital to variable (living, labor) capital increases (as more capital is produced at a higher rate than the labor market expands) is to expand the labor market.

There are basically three ways you can do that: increase the amount of the population in the work force (bringing women and children in during the industrial revolution), export capital so the geographic boarders of the available workforce expands and the total ratio between fixed and variable capital decreases to increase the profit ratio (finance capitalism/imperialism) or to increase the birth rate (religion!).

Technocrat

14th May 2009, 18:49

There are basically three ways you can do that: increase the amount of the population in the work force (bringing women and children in during the industrial revolution), export capital so the geographic boarders of the available workforce expands and the total ratio between fixed and variable capital decreases to increase the profit ratio (finance capitalism/imperialism) or to increase the birth rate (religion!).

You can also increase the number of hours worked per person, such as what is happening now in the U.S. with the gradually increasing work week. Technology is supposed to allow us to work less, but the perversion of the Price System gives us the opposite result.

Vanguard1917

14th May 2009, 20:37

That's fantastic, but all that study does is point out how we can currently feed our current population.

No, it points out, completely in contrast to what you tried to claim, that we currently produce more than enough food to feed 6.5+ billion people. Not only that, it also shows that food production output per person has increased in recent decades despite population growth. Therefore, your argument that population growth will outstrip food supply is mere speculation -- it's not supported by what has actually been happening.

Vanguard1917

14th May 2009, 20:42

However under capitalism today, each human could be fed, clothed and hosued adequately with existing levels of scientific ability, and as V1917 points out, as these conditions improve, each of thse same humans becomes more able to generate further improvement in the means of production which make it easier to support more people with less work.

Yes. And the fact that capitalism fails to provide the goods for all is surely one of the most powerful criticisms that we can make of that system. Instead, what the Malthusians do is basically argue, 'well, there are too many people in the first place'. Hence the deeply conservative nature of that theory.

14th May 2009, 20:52

You can also increase the number of hours worked per person, such as what is happening now in the U.S. with the gradually increasing work week. Technology is supposed to allow us to work less, but the perversion of the Price System gives us the opposite result.

Thats true of course I should have listed that. Theres a natural fixed limit to the hours someone can work in a day though and that variable tends to be exhausted first (export of capital being the only variable that hasn't slown down).

Of course capitalists expand the amount of labor through all four means.

Vanguard1917

14th May 2009, 21:00

Thats true of course I should have listed that. Theres a natural fixed limit to the hours someone can work in a day though and that variable tends to be exhausted first (export of capital being the only variable that hasn't slown down).

Of course capitalists expand the amount of labor through all four means.

Is the expansion of the workforce under capitalism necessarily a negative development from a socialist perspective?

14th May 2009, 21:27

its not necessarily negative, but its not positive either. Capitalists do it to increase their margin of profit to capital. In an advanced socialist society there is no profit accumulation because capital is consumed by the work force that produces it. In this regard while capitalism is driven towards practices that optimize the ratio of profit to privately invested capital, we, were we able to run society, would be driven by practices that optimize the ratio of total capital to total population so as to ensure the highest standard of living. Clearly both 'too few' people and 'too many' people would make that suboptimal but the exact number would depend on the material conditions (whereas for capitalism there is really no ceiling; in a capitalist society more labor is less expensive whereas in a socialist society with 100% guarenteed employment this is not necessarily the case).

Technocrat

14th May 2009, 21:31

No, it points out, completely in contrast to what you tried to claim, that we currently produce more than enough food to feed 6.5+ billion people. Not only that, it also shows that food production output per person has increased in recent decades despite population growth. Therefore, your argument that population growth will outstrip food supply is mere speculation -- it's not supported by what has actually been happening.

No. First, I never claimed that we were unable to feed everyone right now. What I have stated repeatedly is that it would be unsustainable to feed 6.5 billion people for more than a few years before exhausting the necessary resources. You seem to not understand the crucial difference between these two statements. The study you cited does nothing to address the sustainability problem. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be fed just right now. I want to be fed every day, and I want those who come after I have died to also be fed every day.

Food production per person has increased in the past few decades primarily because of the use of petroleum-derived fertilizers. Once the availability of those products begins to diminish, as it already has due to the peaking of worldwide oil production, you will begin to see a decrease in food availability per person. More food allows for more births. But, these additional people then need more food, so you have to constantly expand the production of food. This has been possible in recent years only by using non-renewable resources and by using renewable resources at a rate greater than they can be renewed. Contrary to popular belief, it is our use of renewable resources which is the biggest problem, because we use them up faster than nature can re-charge them. You need to examine the causes behind an event before talking about things which you have little understanding of.

Your argument is akin to the pro-growth economists who look at the last 100 years of economic activity and conclude that growth is the natural order of things. In reality the last 100 years are an aberration in the course of human history.

Vanguard1917

14th May 2009, 21:44

its not necessarily negative, but its not positive either.

What about the Marxist argument that as the size of social labour grows, the working class becomes larger, more concentrated and potentially stronger as a political force? Like the Communist Manifesto pointed out, 'with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more.' Indeed, one of its key criticism of reactionary socialists was that they objected to the growth of the working class under capitalism: 'so little do they conceal the reactionary character of their criticism that their chief accusation against the bourgeois amounts to this, that under the bourgeois régime a class is being developed which is destined to cut up root and branch the old order of society.'

No. First, I never claimed that we were unable to feed everyone right now.

You said: 'Really, when you say that you can feed billions by "progress in the productive forces of society" what you are really saying is "maybe with improved technology that does not exist yet except in the realm of speculation'.

I showed you that you're talking rubbish because the world already produces an abundance of food.

What I have stated repeatedly is that it would be unsustainable to feed 6.5 billion people for more than a few years before exhausting the necessary resources. You seem to not understand the crucial difference between these two statements. The study you cited does nothing to address the sustainability problem.

Food production per person has increased because of the use of petroleum-derived fertilizers. Once the availability of those products begins to diminish, as it already has, you will begin to see a decrease in food availability per person.

Pure speculation. And wild, hysterical speculation at that.

I prefer to deal with facts rather than the-end-is-nigh fantasies -- and the facts show that food production output has been far outstripping population growth for many decades.

Your argument is akin to the pro-growth economists who look at the last 100 years of economic activity and conclude that growth is the natural order of things. In reality the last 100 years are an aberration in the course of human history.

The last hundred years gave us spectacular glimpses of just what kind of material progress humanity is capable of achieving. Capitalist society brought about creations and innovations that would have been thought impossible from the point of view of previous historical epochs.

Socialists don't condemn the progressive aspects of capitalism. We condemn capitalism for holding back progress and we call for a kind of society that will truly unleash humanity's productive potential.

Technocrat

15th May 2009, 02:31

I showed you that you're talking rubbish because the world already produces an abundance of food.You pointed out that the world produces an abundance of food right now, but you have done nothing to show that we could do so in a sustainable fashion.

I never claimed that we were unable to feed everyone right now. What I said is that feeding 6 billion is unsustainable. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

You repeatedly fail to stay on topic, and you have avoided addressing all the evidence I have presented which negates your assertion.

Since you prefer to deal with facts, what do you have to say to EF data which proves you wrong? PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME.

The truth is that you don't prefer facts, you prefer your stupid dogma.

What do you have to say to all the environmental scientists and college professors who disagree with you? THEY ARE ON MY SIDE. I guess they're all flaming capitalists? WHAT A JOKE.

You are presently ignorant. You need to get an education. Read a book or two.

Vanguard1917

15th May 2009, 20:42

You pointed out that the world produces an abundance of food right now, but you have done nothing to show that we could do so in a sustainable fashion.

I never claimed that we were unable to feed everyone right now. What I said is that feeding 6 billion is unsustainable. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

You are speculating that it's 'unsustainable' to feed billions (and you were, remember, the one to accume me of speculation). That's not dealing in fact; it's making predictions about the future that are highly contestable, to say the least.

And, yes, you did claim that we can't feed billions. I showed you that we have been producing enough food to feed billions for several decades, contrary to your absurd claim that we cannot 'feed 6.5 billion people for more than a few years before exhausting the necessary resources' (!).

There is zero evidence to back up your doom-mongering Malthusianism. There is, however, a great deal of evidence to show that we can feed the world's current population, and many, many more on top. And faced with the prospect of future innovations in agriculture, it simply ridiculous to set limits, as though we possess a crystal ball that sees into the future, on how much food we will be able to produce in coming years. What recent history does show is that we are capable of discovering more and more efficient and innovative ways to increase food output (through things like GM technology, factory farming, and modern agricultural machinery).

Technocrat

15th May 2009, 21:31

I'm not going to waste any more time and energy with this. I think its clear to any reasonable person that you aren't interested in an open-minded discussion.

Confirmation bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#column-one), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#searchInput)
In psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology) and cognitive science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science), confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and to avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias) and represents an error of inductive inference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning), or as a form of selection bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias) toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.
Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking), as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#cite_note-0)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#cite_note-0)