Is population our greatest threat?

[NoMasters]

Hello everyone, I am new to this forum and it seems like the place for me!

The question here is that is population our biggest threat? Not only for humanity but for any type of change for true democracy or whatever ideals you align yourself with.

If we keep moving at the rate of population increases then I don't see how realistic the year 3000 is.

I know technological changes can change everything, but regardless, the resources on this earth are finite in many ways.

Am I too pessimistic?

[daft punk]

The greatest threats are capitalism and ecological disaster. Population increase is caused by poverty which is cause by capitalism. Ecological disaster is also caused by capitalism.

A socialist world would tackle the ecological issues and poverty and then if necessary encourage people to have less kids, eg some sort of incentive to stick to two or three per family, or just education via the TV and so on.

Feel free to ask any questions

[The Young Pioneer]

There's enough food for everyone. The problem is the system that keeps most people from being able to buy it. Welcome.

[The Idler]

If anything there's likely to be a population crash (see PeopleQuake book)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Malthusian (or any other population-related) pessimism has been shown to be false by data from the past 200-300 years; population has risen along with living standards. Uneven development of population means that it's unlikely we're anywhere near a cut-off point in terms of population. Probably the opposite...it is unequal distribution of wealth and resources that is a far greater threat to continued rising living standards than a growing population.

[Rooster]

There's no point in being a communist if you're pessimistic, even if the odds look to be against you. Dum spiro spero.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1901/xx/20thcent.htm

[bcbm]

There's no point in being a communist if you're pessimistic

i disagree

[Rooster]

i disagree

Then what's the point in being a communist if you think that humanity can't be saved? Also, thanks for the fucking enlightening fucking post.

[Vanguard1917]

Then what's the point in being a communist if you think that humanity can't be saved?

Indeed.

"Marxism sets out from the development of technique as the fundamental spring of progress, and constructs the communist program upon the dynamic of the productive forces. If you conceive that some cosmic catastrophe is going to destroy our planet in the fairly near future, then you must, of course, reject the communist perspective along with much else. Except for this as yet problematic danger, however, there is not the slightest scientific ground for setting any limit in advance to our technical productive and cultural possibilities. Marxism is saturated with the optimism of progress, and that alone, by the way, makes it irreconcilably opposed to religion."
- Trotsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm)


***************

Not that there's anything to be pessimistic about as far as population growth goes: there is not a grain of evidence that population growth is a danger to humanity.

[NoMasters]

I agree with what the reasons are for population increases. And yes I do agree that it is the system of unequal distribution of resources that we have.

But that does nothing but explain a cause of population increase and no solution to it.

To say that there are many scientific proofs that we can sustain at the population burst we are at is absolutely false.

Let me put this into realistic interpretation of what I am talking about rather than theoretical reasons for the problem.

"The Earth has been around for 4.6 billion years. Scaling this time down to 46 years we have been around for 4 hours and our Industrial Revolution began just 1 minute ago. During this short time period we have ransacked the planet for ways to get fuels and raw materials, have been the cause of extinction of an unthinkable amount of plants and animals, and have multiplied our population to that of a plague."

Malthusian or not, this is what is happening.

[Vanguard1917]

Let me put this into realistic interpretation of what I am talking about rather than theoretical reasons for the problem.

"The Earth has been around for 4.6 billion years. Scaling this time down to 46 years we have been around for 4 hours and our Industrial Revolution began just 1 minute ago. During this short time period we have ransacked the planet for ways to get fuels and raw materials, have been the cause of extinction of an unthinkable amount of plants and animals, and have multiplied our population to that of a plague."

That's not a 'realistic interpretation'; it's your disturbed subjective view of humanity.



But that does nothing but explain a cause of population increase and no solution to it.


The necessity of a solution presupposes the existence of a problem. Population growth is not a problem, and it has never been demonstrated to be a problem. Therefore, any talk of a 'solution' is redundant.

[tbasherizer]

If you look at humanity as a whole, some parts of the Industrial Revolution may not have even happened. Sure, fertilizers and pesticides can sustain higher amounts of people being born in the third world, but in terms of what we qualify to be 'post-industrial' living, most people in the world are excluded. This makes the net carbon footprint of the bulk of the human population almost negligible compared to that of the industrial nations.

Seeing as capitalism is the predominant mode of production in the industrial world that so pollutes the world, I'd say that capitalism, not world population, is the problem. Once the working class controls the smoke stacks and car production lines, we'll be more mindful of our futures than the bosses and find alternative routes for industry and mitigate what environmental damage we can.

[NoMasters]

Of course it is subjective, but it is merely a way to understand the progression of population mixed with our political systems. I should have not said realistic because of course it is subjective.

However, that doesn't take away the implications of mass population increases and how it is affecting our Earth at exponential rates. And it seems funny to me that you are denying population problems like neoconservatives deny global warming in America....

To deny the implications of overpopulation and the utter destruction it causes to our climate are not only irreversible, but possibly deadly.

Major environmentalist

“Overpopulation is the only problem,” said Dr. Charles A. Hall, a systems ecologist. “If we had 100 million people on Earth — or better, 10 million — no others would be a problem.” (Current estimates put the planet’s population at more than six billion.)

When referring to "others", this means like carbon emissions or other major factors that are destroying the environment.

SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF).

[hatzel]

There's enough food for everyone. The problem is the system that keeps most people from being able to buy it.

I'm willing to echo this. At the same time, however, there certainly is a legitimate question concerning whether or not the current industrial, technological, agricultural etc. systems that ensure this reality are anything like (ecologically) sustainable, and (if we are to believe that they aren't) it is rather doubtful that a mere shift of power - from the capitalists to society as a whole - will magically solve this issue without a drastic rearrangement of the very 'skeleton' of society. I won't push that issue too hard because I don't want anybody bringing out the primmie accusations, though I certainly don't feel that socialist forms of social organisation will find this problem any more challenging than capitalism would - in fact, socialism is probably better suited to the task, whether or not it is fully equipped. I should say, however, that I don't expect our current way of life - particularly when it comes to industry, agriculture and the intersection of the two - to simply continue unabated with new bosses. I don't consider that all that desirable - as much for humankind as so-called 'nature,' - even without questioning its possibility.

(Be warned, however, that primitivists are restricted here. The fact that you claimed that technology can change the situation suggests you don't adhere to this particular ideology, though it's only fair this is pointed out to you, in case you were unaware)

[Ocean Seal]

Someone honestly needs to sticky some anti-Malthusian shit so we can get this ridiculous discussion over with.

[workersadvocate]

If anything, increased population is our greastest hope.
If that seems crazy, think about who's having most if those kids,
who's not, and what it will take for workers of the world to emanicipate ourselves and rebuild this world as an abundant world for us.
The world's working class is already a supermajority of humanity, and we're getting objectively stronger throughout the world every day. On the other hand, who's getting older, not having so many kids, and gradually dying off or being proletarianized? The base support for this system...bit by bit, it's the bourgeoisies and middle classes!
All their wealth and all their technology can't save them from the swelling increasingly strong international working class.

[bcbm]

Then what's the point in being a communist if you think that humanity can't be saved?

i don't think 'saved' is the right word for it, and i never said that humanity 'can't' be. but i don't think communism is at all inevitable and the blind worship of progress is absurd.


Also, thanks for the fucking enlightening fucking post. i don't think there is anything to get vulgar about

[Polyphonic Foxes]

We produce enough food every year to feed the world everday 3 times over, soak that in.

We could fit every human being on earth in an area about the size of Texas, with each human getting a medium sized house. Soak that in too.

I don't believe there is a population crisis, we easilly produce enough, we live in a very abundent society, the problem in inequal distribution, ergo, the problem in capitalism.

This one one reason why capitalism is the economical equivelent of self destruction and suicide.

[ad novum orbem]

From what I've read around the board I'm too new to post links, but there's a 3.5 minute clip on YouTube in which David Suzuki goes over the problem of exponential population growth. It's definitely worth watching.

Paste this into the search bar at YouTube >> David Suzuki speaks about overpopulation

[Mr. Natural]

The topic of population is a third rail on the left. Of course, capitalist relations are the immediate problem, but there are others.

The Earth has a limited carrying capacity. We will run out of our finite source of energy--fossil fuels--and then what will much of the world's population of 7 billion do for energy? Alternative sources will not have been developed under capitalism.

Another problem is population density. I don't believe we are evolved to live stacked on top of one another. A high population will also inevitably damage nature's ecologies and degrade human relations with the natural world.

I believe a communist Earth would aim for an optimal and not a maximal population. Quality, not quantity, should be the watchword.

[workersadvocate]

Who says we're limiting ourselves to the Earth in the future?

And that part about quality over quantity---speaking of human beings---comes straight out fascist ideology, and reflects middle class elitist racist outlook.
"Quality" means according to this outlook: middle white American middle class folks.
And I shouldn't be surprised to see subcribers to such ideas in the middle class left (which is overwhelming white, no doubt for the excuse of "quality").
In America, "quality" judgements about human beings are racist as hell. Quality is just one of their polite implicit racist codewords.

[Vanguard1917]

Of course it is subjective, but it is merely a way to understand the progression of population mixed with our political systems. I should have not said realistic because of course it is subjective.

Yes, it's subjective and wrong to see humanity as a 'plague', as you do.

Let's not worry about capitalism causing poverty for the masses: it would be better if the masses (or at least the majority of them) didn't even exist. That's essentially what you believe, and it's clearly a conservative approach to the question of world poverty, since it implies that the world's problems could be solved or alleviated 'simply' through birth control, rather than radical social change.



Major environmentalist

“Overpopulation is the only problem,” said Dr. Charles A. Hall, a systems ecologist. “If we had 100 million people on Earth — or better, 10 million — no others would be a problem.”


Major nutcase, you mean. And he's also plain wrong. When global population numbers were closer to 100 million than to 7 billion, civilised humanity lived under systems of slavery or feudalism, life expectancy was about 30 and about half of all children died before the age of 1. Thus a lower population does not by any means imply a better world for human beings. In reality, due to human progress, the world has never before been more suitable for human inhabitation than it is today -- and the human population has never been higher. A correlation which, of course, the Malthusian scare-mongers very conveniently choose to ignore...

[NoMasters]

Yes, it's subjective and wrong to see humanity as a 'plague', as you do.

Let's not worry about capitalism causing poverty for the masses: it would be better if the masses (or at least the majority of them) didn't even exist. That's essentially what you believe, and it's clearly a conservative approach to the question of world poverty, since it implies that the world's problems could be solved or alleviated 'simply' through birth control, rather than radical social change.



Major nutcase, you mean. And he's also plain wrong. When global population numbers were closer to 100 million than to 7 billion, civilised humanity lived under systems of slavery or feudalism, life expectancy was about 30 and about half of all children died before the age of 1. Thus a lower population does not by any means imply a better world for human beings. In reality, due to human progress, the world has never before been more suitable for human inhabitation than it is today -- and the human population has never been higher. A correlation which, of course, the Malthusian scare-mongers very conveniently choose to ignore...

Look, I am only asking what your thoughts are about this subject.

Of course I blame the problem on capitalism as you do. And I think that would help a lot in stopping the problem. As I personally have thought that over population within minority groups in my home state of Texas is not because they are lowly people with no understanding of life, its probably because they aren't getting decent wages and they have children to both get citizenship and help feed their families through our welfare system.

Hence my anarcho-syndicalist flag with a green stripe (environmentalism) :)

[Zulu]

It should be remembered that the classics of Marxism-Leninism made their studies before the planetary population boom became evident. Otherwise they would have pondered on it quite thoroughly, I think. And they would probably reassess their stance about Malthus' theory. By the way, the main Malthusian thesis was formulated even before Malthus, by Thomas Hobbes, who wrote that the population crash would be the most probable end to the human race, upon which everything would be up to God.

[Vanguard1917]

It should be remembered that the classics of Marxism-Leninism made their studies before the planetary population boom became evident.

And the years since Marx, Engels and Lenin died have, if anything, further confirmed the truth of their criticisms of Malthusian thought. The human population has grown and grown, and Malthusian fears have, over and over and again, been demonstrated to be completely off the mark. Marx and Engels' veiwpoint has repeatedly been shown to have been right: Malthus's theory is still a libel against the human race - and more so today than ever before.

[NoMasters]

And the years since Marx and Lenin have, if anything, further confirmed the truth of their criticisms of Malthusian thought. The human population has grown and grown, and Malthusian fears have, over and over and again, been demonstrated to be completely off the mark. Marx and Engels have repeatedly been shown to have been right: Malthus's theory is a libel against the human race.

A libel? That is so not true. It is a theory that the human race will implode to its own destruction. Similar to Marx's theory about the internal contradictions of capitalism.

How can you completely deny the environmental degradation because of capitalism and absurd population growth?

[Zulu]

In reality, due to human progress, the world has never before been more suitable for human inhabitation than it is today -- and the human population has never been higher. A correlation which, of course, the Malthusian scare-mongers very conveniently choose to ignore...

You get it wrong. The "Malthusian scare-mongers" argue that the world was a bit more suitable for human habitation 100 years ago, when the population was 4 times smaller. They argue that there certainly is a point, an event horizon, when the population growth stops being a positive ecological factor and becomes a negative ecological factor. No matter how green&clean you make the human life cycle (with all the industrial production it takes to support it these days), you can't make it 100% clean. And that means that with a large enough number of people you get enough waste and exhaust to destroy the environment. It's simple math, really.

Surely, when capitalism eventually gives way to communism, the average quality of life will be better with the same number of people under the same environmental conditions, but it can't cancel the basic laws of nature. It is also of a considerable importance to what extent the capitalism will have damaged the environment by that time.

[Lord Testicles]

Of course it is subjective, but it is merely a way to understand the progression of population mixed with our political systems. I should have not said realistic because of course it is subjective.

However, that doesn't take away the implications of mass population increases and how it is affecting our Earth at exponential rates. And it seems funny to me that you are denying population problems like neoconservatives deny global warming in America....

To deny the implications of overpopulation and the utter destruction it causes to our climate are not only irreversible, but possibly deadly.

Major environmentalist

“Overpopulation is the only problem,” said Dr. Charles A. Hall, a systems ecologist. “If we had 100 million people on Earth — or better, 10 million — no others would be a problem.” (Current estimates put the planet’s population at more than six billion.)

When referring to "others", this means like carbon emissions or other major factors that are destroying the environment.

SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF).

If the choices are breed until we burn out or reduce our numbers by 6,800,000,000 with some kind of hippy environmentalist death camp, then the obvious option is the former, no? That's assuming that any of that overpopulation nonsense is anything but.

[Vanguard1917]

You get it wrong. The "Malthusian scare-mongers" argue that the world was a bit more suitable for human habitation 100 years ago, when the population was 4 times smaller.

Then their argument falls to pieces at the first hurdle. Use any indicator of human wellbeing you like (be it life expectancy, infant mortality, health, literacy, education), and you will see that it is empirical fact the majority of the 7 billion people on earth today are better off than the majority of the 2 billion or so people who inhabited the earth 100 years ago.

That's not to celebrate current standards of living. It's to provide evidence against the wholly conservative, misanthropic equation that more human beings means more misery.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You get it wrong. The "Malthusian scare-mongers" argue that the world was a bit more suitable for human habitation 100 years ago, when the population was 4 times smaller. They argue that there certainly is a point, an event horizon, when the population growth stops being a positive ecological factor and becomes a negative ecological factor. No matter how green&clean you make the human life cycle (with all the industrial production it takes to support it these days), you can't make it 100% clean. And that means that with a large enough number of people you get enough waste and exhaust to destroy the environment. It's simple math, really.

Surely, when capitalism eventually gives way to communism, the average quality of life will be better with the same number of people under the same environmental conditions, but it can't cancel the basic laws of nature. It is also of a considerable importance to what extent the capitalism will have damaged the environment by that time.

Malthus' argument had nothing to do with damaging the ecological systems. It was all about the relationship between population and living standards, wages, productivity etc. He has been proved emphatically wrong. The world's population is at 7 billion and counting, and as a species we are as prosperous as we have ever been, in mean-average terms.

[Zulu]

Use any indicator of human wellbeing you like (be it life expectancy, infant mortality, health, literacy, education), and you will see that it is empirical fact the majority of the 7 billion people on earth today are better off than the majority of the 2 billion or so people who inhabited the earth 100 years ago.


First of all there are other indicators of well being, such as suicide rates, drug abuse and such.

And then there is the empirical fact that health and education indicators were rising at the fastest pace when the advent of communism appeared to be apparent (so here comes the "better off with communism in otherwise same environment" argument), which made even the countries that always stayed capitalist adopt some socially progressive policies.

Which, still does not cancel the simple observed Law of Fucking Nature: the population is ALWAYS at its highest before the abrupt crash. By your way of thinking, that's some kind of a paradox, because how can there be a crash, if the population is higher than ever, which may only be a result of the best living conditions ever. But it's not a paradox, it's your fallacy at science. Because the population itself is a major environmental factor and must be taken into equation.

Let me put it the way you'd probably understand: if I lived for 150 years in excellent health, had IQ=160 and my belly always full of sweetest candy and vintage cognac, but all that in a rush-hour packed subway car... well, excuse me, but that life would still be shit.

[Zulu]

Malthus' argument had nothing to do with damaging the ecological systems.
Actually, Ecology as a science is a subsection of Biology, and it deals exactly with populations, competition for resources and things like that. Green activism is a mere (and somewhat distorted) application of the ecological science to politics.





It was all about the relationship between population and living standards, wages, productivity etc. He has been proved emphatically wrong. The world's population is at 7 billion and counting, and as a species we are as prosperous as we have ever been, in mean-average terms.
On the contrary, he has been proven right, as it was exactly what he said: that no matter the perfection of science and industry, there will always be the poor and the hungry (there are now), because the humankind tends to always populate its environment to capacity. The conclusion that sometime in the future it will populate all the space available on planet Earth, at which point there will be a total collapse, is a mere projection of this tendency, which he gave no time estimate about. However, when that conclusion is proven right, it'll be a little too late to do anything about it, even with communism.

[Vanguard1917]

Let me put it the way you'd probably understand: if I lived for 150 years in excellent health, had IQ=160 and my belly always full of sweetest candy and vintage cognac, but all that in a rush-hour packed subway car... well, excuse me, but that life would still be shit.

I wouldn't say 'shit'. On the contrary I would say that centenarians living 'in excellent health' and being able to participate effectively in the hustle and bustle of everyday urban life woud signify some pretty serious progress. It would certainly beat dying in your 50s (luck permitting), never having learnt how to read or write, suffering from chronic illness, being subject to the whims of nature on some field where you and your family perform backbreaking labour in order to eat, and having three of your six children die fairly soon after birth.

[NoMasters]

If the choices are breed until we burn out or reduce our numbers by 6,800,000,000 with some kind of hippy environmentalist death camp, then the obvious option is the former, no? That's assuming that any of that overpopulation nonsense is anything but.

Yes, that's what I am saying. I am just a environmentalist eugenicist. :thumbup1:

Or....maybe actually educating people on the subject rather than ignoring it and hoping for a utopian solution through a revolution. I.e. adoption and things alike. I wouldn't go for the voluntary sterilization of the population.

Lets also remember that 50 million abortions take place every year. And with the rising neoconservative movement in place, which even goes as far as to trying to ban contraceptives, will exacerbate things in the future.

Remember that 300 years ago the population was around 610 million. 300 years from now, it will almost 40 billion. (U.N. estimates)

That is a 6,500% percent increase in 600 years.

Now technology could definitely help us conserve energy and live past the year 3000 or so.

But I guess Marxists are more concerned with utopia rather than reason.

[Zulu]

@Vanguard1917

You misread me. I said the entire 150-year life in a crowded subway car, how'd you feel about that?

[Lolumad273]

I'm going to throw my couple of cents in here...

I think that Capitalism has reduced our carrying capacity prematurely through wasteful use of resources, in the name of profit. There's no reason that the US alone needs to use 21 million barrels of oil a day. Communism would certainly help reduce a lot of our waste, and possibly make our current population sustainable.

As for feeding the world 3 times, I'm going to have to disagree with that. Our farming techniques are catastrophic. Since 1900, 90% of the species of potatoes have gone extinct; we now grow 3 kinds of potatoes, and 2 kinds of corn. This trend is universal in almost all types of food. It's all genetically engineered. Biodiversity is very important, imagine a new disease wiping out our corn, we only grow two kinds! The US will run out of phosphorous for fertilizer in 10 years, oil in 30. Not sure how increasing population will solve any of those problems.

I do believe that with better resource management, we could overcome these problems, and communism is the best way.

[kuros]

If anything, increased population is our greastest hope.
If that seems crazy, think about who's having most if those kids,
who's not, and what it will take for workers of the world to emanicipate ourselves and rebuild this world as an abundant world for us.
The world's working class is already a supermajority of humanity, and we're getting objectively stronger throughout the world every day. On the other hand, who's getting older, not having so many kids, and gradually dying off or being proletarianized? The base support for this system...bit by bit, it's the bourgeoisies and middle classes!
All their wealth and all their technology can't save them from the swelling increasingly strong international working class.
You seem to assume that there is no social mobility, which is false. Just because the upper classes tend to have less than a replacement level amount of children does not mean that the upper classes will become smaller as a percentage of the population, as there still is some social mobility, which ensures that the upper class as a percentage of the total population will remain constant

[#FF0000]

The topic of population is a third rail on the left. Of course, capitalist relations are the immediate problem, but there are others.

The Earth has a limited carrying capacity. We will run out of our finite source of energy--fossil fuels--and then what will much of the world's population of 7 billion do for energy? Alternative sources will not have been developed under capitalism.

Another problem is population density. I don't believe we are evolved to live stacked on top of one another. A high population will also inevitably damage nature's ecologies and degrade human relations with the natural world.

I believe a communist Earth would aim for an optimal and not a maximal population. Quality, not quantity, should be the watchword.

so anyone notice this dumb post from before

[Firebrand]

Actually I think the birth rate in a LOTof ****ries is dropping, and the ones where it isn't tend to still have a high proportion of peasant farmers. Population is not an issue because given the choice the majority of women will not choose to have 10-15 kids, in case you didn't realise, childcare and pregnancy aren't something most people want to spend their lives doing.
There are anumber of reasons why people have lots of kids, nearly all of which wouldn't exist in a communist society.
1. high child mortality rate. People know that most of their kids won't reach adulthood so they have lots in the hope of getting some through. (this is actually thought to be biologically based, when people are stressed and desparate it flicks a chemical trigger in their brains to go for quantity not quality, i.e. to have lots of kids rather than put a lot of effort into just a couple which may not live). Hopefully people won't be in this position under communism.
2. Lack of contraceptive access, religious refusal to use contraceptives, i'm sure this can be solved fairly easily.
3. Economic incentives to have lots of kids, i.e. in an agriculturally based society kids are an asset as they can work on the farm, and if child labour isn't illegal in an industrial society then they can earn a wage and contribute to the family income. In a commmunist society economic considerations would no longer be valid.
4. wanting lots of kids, some people just like children and want lots of them, i'm sure that this would be balanced out by the numbers of people who don't want kids at all. And i'm sure that lots of these people would adopt unwanted kids anyway.

As you can see, while there may be a limit to the number of people that can live on earth, we haven't reached it and I don't think we ever will, population growth would stabilize natuarlly after the revolution.

[workersadvocate]

We've gotten quite the load of cappie libertarian racist anti-immigrant misanthropic trolls lately on this forum.

[CommieTroll]

sc4HxPxNrZ0

[Mr. Natural]

My first post in this thread observed that the topic of population constitutes a third rail in left politics. However, I didn't expect my brief, conscientiously delivered remarks to spark out-and-out stupidities clearly intended to be offensive.

Workersadvocate wonders, "Who says we're limiting ourselves to the Earth in the future?" I do. The Earth is our home. Are you a "left" Startrekkie, dude?

Workersadvocate then declares that my statement that we need to emphasize population quality, not quantity is fascist and racist. Huh? How so? Isn't your wannabe radical mind just hurling epithets here in the absence of any understanding? I find the quality of your remarks to be quite poor. Is this fascist? Racist? It's certainly accurate.

Then Workersadvocate concludes, "We've gotten quite the load of cappie libertarian racist anti-immigrant trolls lately on this forum."

You write like a petty bourgeois brat having a tantrum, Workersadvocate. Are you really unable to do better than this?

My first post also left #FF0000 almost speechless, which is probably a good spot for him.

Population is one of the many critical issues facing the left. Unfortunately, population issues are too critical to be discussed rationally in a comradely manner by many ostensible leftists. Bah, humbug!

[workersadvocate]

My first post in this thread observed that the topic of population constitutes a third rail in left politics. However, I didn't expect my brief, conscientiously delivered remarks to spark out-and-out stupidities clearly intended to be offensive.

Workersadvocate wonders, "Who says we're limiting ourselves to the Earth in the future?" I do. The Earth is our home. Are you a "left" Startrekkie, dude?

Workersadvocate then declares that my statement that we need to emphasize population quality, not quantity is fascist and racist. Huh? How so? Isn't your wannabe radical mind just hurling epithets here in the absence of any understanding? I find the quality of your remarks to be quite poor. Is this fascist? Racist? It's certainly accurate.

Then Workersadvocate concludes, "We've gotten quite the load of cappie libertarian racist anti-immigrant trolls lately on this forum."

You write like a petty bourgeois brat having a tantrum, Workersadvocate. Are you really unable to do better than this?

My first post also left #FF0000 almost speechless, which is probably a good spot for him.

Population is one of the many critical issues facing the left. Unfortunately, population issues are too critical to be discussed rationally in a comradely manner by many ostensible leftists. Bah, humbug!
If you think we need to "weed" humanity, then I say we only do so start with the top 33% exploiter oppressor segments of the population in imperialist countries, NOT with black, brown, and yellow people on the other side of the world while white Western bourgeois and middle class folk get comfy! Ever notice who it is who pushes that genocide-justifiction in the name of resolving a supposed overpopulation problem? Well, if it reall is a problem, let the genocide-justifiers be the first ones to get weeded!

Yes, I do want to offend you if you are justifying genocide of the world's poor and oppressed using psuedoscience arguments about overpopulation. The objective situation context in which this argument is being raised reveals it is all about justifying genocide and trying to trick leftists from the West (who are mostly "white" and middle class) into supporting it.
Not only that, but a casual glance through recent threads on this forum reveals a ton of trolling of the kinds I mentioned before, barely disguised (if they bother) as leftist.
I think we have a lot of Ron Paul and scumfront fascist types playing troll around on this forum right now...and then here we have this thread about the supposed danger of overpopulation. Connect the dots.

[CommunityBeliever]

I know technological changes can change everything, but regardless, the resources on this earth are finite in many ways.

Our resources on this Earth are finite, but we have hardly begin to utilise them. Consider that the ocean is 70% of the Earth's surface and we have barely begun to harness its resources. The vast resources of the ocean will help us transition to a type-1 society.

With ocean cities we can more then double the world's living space and with open-ocean farming we can produce more food then ever. The ocean is also 3.3 parts per billion uranium, so with seawater uranium extraction and nuclear breeder reactors, we can power all the Earth's resources for seven million years. Finally, the ocean contains all the water we will ever need, as long as we extract the H₂O molecules from it.


We will run out of our finite source of energy--fossil fuels--and then what will much of the world's population of 7 billion do for energy? Alternative sources will not have been developed under capitalism.

I agree with that point. The capitalists have had several decades to develop alternatives to fossil fuels and they have so far failed to effectively do so. As the fossil fuels run out the inherent contradictions in capitalism will become increasingly antagonistic and we will see more protests, revolutions, and civil wars. The current financial crisis and the Arab spring is only the start of it.

The best solution to our dwindling supply of fossil fuels is nuclear energy, so more and more countries such as Iran will try to peacefully develop this technology. Unfortunately, the imperialist countries will use this as a pretext for war against these poor countries, with the excuse that these poor countries may being developing nuclear weaponry.

In summary, we will see more and more imperialist wars, protests, revolutions, and civil wars. We can only hope that socialism will arise out of the ruins of capitalist society built by this process.

[NoMasters]

You really believe our ocean will last long enough for that to happen?

[CommunityBeliever]

You really believe our ocean will last long enough for that to happen?

What do you propose is going to happen to it?

[NoMasters]

What do you propose is going to happen to it?

I think by the time we even start considering building civilizations on water, we would have destroyed the ecosystem in the ocean for it to sustain itself naturally.

Several fish populations are on the verge of extinction. The very nature of the ocean is being altered and I doubt we will be able to change it back to the way it was. We are irreversibly destroying the ocean and all the species that inhabit it.

[Zulu]

if you are justifying genocide

Genocide is what's likely to happen, if a global communist revolution fails to occur before a global fascist corporation comes into being through the natural process of capital concentration and begins addressing the overpopulation crisis in its own way. Which is the good old way of addressing any crisis of overproduction: destroying the goods.

How would the communists address the problem? Look at China.

[workersadvocate]

Again, if there are really too many people, then the bourgeios and middle classes of the West should be the first "sacrifice". Especially since it they who invented and propagate this line about overpopuation.
You do realize that this overpopulation theme is a pet project if the British royals, right?
Has Prince Philip logged onto Revleft to troll us?

[kuros]

My first post in this thread observed that the topic of population constitutes a third rail in left politics. However, I didn't expect my brief, conscientiously delivered remarks to spark out-and-out stupidities clearly intended to be offensive.

Workersadvocate wonders, "Who says we're limiting ourselves to the Earth in the future?" I do. The Earth is our home. Are you a "left" Startrekkie, dude?
Can you give any rational reason why we should not colonize other planets?

[Ostrinski]

Socialism will be able to fit many more people comfortably because there will be a surplus of goods instead of an intentional shortage.

[Zulu]

Can you give any rational reason why we should not colonize other planets?

We should definitely colonize other planets, and that's one of the reasons why communism is so necessary (capitalism will never bother with such a thing). But it will not be a solution to the overpopulation of planet Earth any time soon for quite obvious technological and economic limitations.

[CommunityBeliever]

Can you give any rational reason why we should not colonize other planets?

We should not colonize other planets because we haven't even colonised our own oceans yet. Colonizing our own planet, which has sufficient quantities of atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen, is a much easier undertaking then colonising other planets.


Several fish populations are on the verge of extinction. The very nature of the ocean is being altered and I doubt we will be able to change it back to the way it was. We are irreversibly destroying the ocean and all the species that inhabit it.

The extermination of fish populations is actually one reason I am a vegan, so I am pretty familiar with this issue. A large part of this process is the oil spills, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which have significantly exacerbated the problem. This is all the more reason that we should reduce our dependence on oil imports by using nuclear fission, see ignorance about nuclear power is killing us (http://russp.us/BLC-1.html).

Despite all of these problems, I remain optimistic that a future socialist society will be able recover from them in order to colonise the oceans and satisfy all of our material needs.

[Zulu]

Socialism will be able to fit many more people comfortably because there will be a surplus of goods instead of an intentional shortage.

That will be achieved through a higher productivity of labor. But the higher productivity of labor comes with a higher level of energy consumption and industrial waste per capita, which means that even if the population remains at 7 billion (which it will not), all the ecological issues that bother the "Malthusian scare-mongers" will become more acute. In a way Earth will be even more overpopulated with the same number of people, which will require the society to take some measures to solve this ecological riddle.

[Mr. Natural]

Comrades, Others, The OP asked, "Is population our greatest threat?" The short answer is NO--Hell, No! Capitalism is by far our greatest threat, and it makes rational solutions to developing problems such as population impossible.

Population--quality and quantity--is a "growing" problem that must eventually be addressed if the human species is to realize its nature. This natural human nature is communism: social individuals living in community. Who will address any population problem? Human social individuals living in community under socialist/communist relations.

WorkersAdvocate, Calm down. How can you attribute genocidal objectives or a desire to "weed" humanity from my observation: "I believe a communist Earth would aim for an optimal and not a maximal population. Quality, not quantity should be the watchword."

I'm white, but have a lifelong hatred of racism in all its guises and a track record of opposition to racism. I'm a member of the human race.

You write like a person of color whose "paranoia" is historically well-based, or a liberal white person who is alienated from your own struggle within capitalism and has taken up the cause of others. In either case, though, you are radically misunderstanding my comments and intent.

CommunityBeliever, Thanks for your commentary on my remark concerning the human species' looming energy problem. I largely disagree with your solution, though. As NoMasters noted, our oceans are already degraded. This is becoming an ecological disaster. As for nuclear energy taking up the slack, this would be a terminal disaster under capitalism, but nuclear power might possibly serve as our major transitional source of power under socialism/communism as humanity develops truly renewable, non-toxic energies.

Kuros asked, "Can you give me any rational reason we should not colonize other planets?" Sure. Our task is to "colonize" Earth with communist, natural relations. We cannot run away from our Earthly problems.

For that matter, who wants to live in a bubble in hostile terrain?

Zulu, I liked your "Genocide is what's likely to happen, if a global communist revolution fails to occur before a global fascist corporation comes into being through the natural process of capital concentration and begins addressing the overpopulation crisis in its own way. Which is the good old way of addressing any crisis of overproduction: destroying the goods."

I also liked your last post on inevitably higher energy consumption as population increases. But what does communism have to do with China or China's extreme forms of population control?

My original post in this thread made six points:
1: Capitalism is the immediate problem.
2: Planet Earth has a limited carrying capacity.
3: We are running out of our fossil fuel energy sources and have no replacements.
4: High population densities are probably unnatural and psychologically problematic.
5: High populations are inevitably environmentally destructive.
6: We need to aim for an optimal, not maximal population: quality over quantity. In this I am emphasizing communist relations, not race. Race has nothing to do with this comment.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Look, I am only asking what your thoughts are about this subject.

Of course I blame the problem on capitalism as you do. And I think that would help a lot in stopping the problem. As I personally have thought that over population within minority groups in my home state of Texas is not because they are lowly people with no understanding of life, its probably because they aren't getting decent wages and they have children to both get citizenship and help feed their families through our welfare system.

Hence my anarcho-syndicalist flag with a green stripe (environmentalism) :)How are only minority groups overpopulated?

Did you know that in your home state of Texas is the example used in a famous rebuttal of the concept of overpopulation?


According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).

So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.


Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard -- and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth.
Overpopulation is a myth. Does overcrowding exist in some places? Yes. Could resources be used past the point of recovery? Yes, it has happened before. Do these things have their root in population? No.

Overpopulation is an ideological construction that has been used by governments to blame poverty and bad living conditions for the poor on the poor themselves.

Overcrowding is obviously a structural issue in capitalism - people are more overcrowded now in the US than a few years ago but not because of any boost in population (in fact the recession has caused a decline in immigration and dampened birth-rates). It's because of housing and downward mobility. More people are living with their parents into their adult life, more adults are subletting rooms in their house or sharing their apartments to make mortgage or rent. There's even a show on home and garden TV about subletting extra rooms in your house and that channel is for yuppies!

And the use of resources? That's a production issue, not a consumption issue. The US exports food yet food prices are too high for growing numbers of people. People don't consume too much in general, companies wastefully use resources and poor production methods in order to make profits quick. In Latin America, there are laws in the rainforest that require owners to develop that land - i.e. cut down the Forrest. Capitalism is always about get what you can as quick and cheep as you can and then move onto the next place - sustainability takes time, time in which your corporate competitors will use to extract a bunch of oil quickly or destroy a lake and then move to the next. The Pacific Northwest is full of ghost-towns where there once was lumber industries, in the Southwest it's mining ghost-towns. In Texas, I'm sure there are oil ghost-towns. Capitalism eats what it can and then moves on.

[#FF0000]

My first post also left #FF0000 almost speechless, which is probably a good spot for him.

Speechless only because there's really not much else to be said after revisiting this dumb topic a million times over. There is enough to provide for everyone on the planet many times over. Our problem is one of distribution.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Population is one of the many critical issues facing the left. Unfortunately, population issues are too critical to be discussed rationally in a comradely manner by many ostensible leftists. Bah, humbug!No, it's an abstract issue at this point. Maybe someday there could possibly be real overpopulation, but right now the only problem for workers is environmental destruction and/or overcrowding. Other environmental issues that get conflated into population issues in politics and mainstream environmentalism such as resource depletion are not the fault of population growth in the abstract.

Unfortunately it's not a third-rail on the left, I wish it was because it's pseudo-science. But not only that the overpopulation myth is used by liberals to obscure the real root of some of these issues (pollution and recourse depletion) and then only offer induvidualist and moral solutions: decrease your carbon footprint, buy solar panels for your house or an electric light bulb (ok that last one I can do, but I don't have a house or even money to buy and electric car - or any car). On the shittier end, these myths are used for the same reason that Malthus was so popular among the British Ruling class who wanted to starve Ireland but disallow any sympathy for Ireland. There's a faction of the Sierra Club that sees population as the biggest threat to the environment and tried to take over the leadership of that group to take it in a new direction for environmental action: fighting to stop all immigration into the US. If they actually believe their shit, how scientific is it to believe that imaginary lines on maps will stop environmental problems caused by the rest of the world?

Once you pull at the threads of overpopulation politics, the whole thing falls apart.

[Zulu]

Once you pull at the threads of overpopulation politics, the whole thing falls apart.

I live in a country where overpopulation is not an issue of politics, and my judgment comes from general knowledge of history, geography and biology. And I can tell you that the problem is present and real. And your being so appalled by this discussion only reflects the fact that there have already been indications of how it's going to be addressed by the current masters of this planet: in a most discriminative manner up to the possibility of open genocide. But shutting your eyes in horror and saying the problem does not exit will not make the problem disappear.

And I repeat, the problem lies not so much with the number of people, but with the total amount of energy being consumed and waste generated by humanity as a whole. And under communism these figures will continue to rise even if the population remains stable. The only way to conserve the overall levels of energy consumption and waste while increasing the productivity of labor is to reduce the size of the population.




But what does communism have to do with China or China's extreme forms of population control?

I know there is capitalism in China. However, I have my reservations about the revisionism apparently plaguing the CPC. At least they seem to be aware at what side of "good and evil" they are currently on. And I think that the "one child" policy is a sound, reasonable and fair for all alternative to discriminative sterilization and death camps.

[workersadvocate]

I can't calm down about this, especially because fascism is a growing actual problem in the West where a majority of Revleft folks come from.
Fascists commonly pose "environmentalist" and concerned about "overpopulation" in order to justify genocide against specially oppressed peoples. They also use "quality" ---speaking of human beings---to mean only 'elite' white people should survive, or at least that only they should rule over and prosper atop an enslaved (old school slavery) and heavily ethnically cleansed society.

Nowadays in the West, this fascist message is finding increased support especially in "white" middle classes. This is more obvious on the Right, but the Left is certainly not immune and uninfluenced, and here is where the ethnic and class composition demographics of the Left in the West really opens up to terrible danger, and there is historical precendent to be concerned about regarding disillusioned middle class leftists defecting to fascism or getting soft on it and capitulating to chauvinism.

I don't bother with distinguishing "good intentioned" anymore regarding arguments justifying fascism. I don't think working people can afford to be naive about it.
As soon as a scapegoat gets made, it's war on us workers of the world. We must educate, organize and act independently as an international class-for-itself to win the war. No trust in the bourgeoisie or middle classes, their Right or their Left.

[Zulu]

fascism is a growing actual problem in the West ...

Fascists commonly pose "environmentalist" and concerned about "overpopulation" in order to justify genocide against specially oppressed peoples...

That's exactly why the problem of overpopulation must be acknowledged and a better solution to it proposed, so that the fascists couldn't use it for their brand and political vehicle. But right now they can justifiably say that the leftists are putting their heads in the sand about the overpopulation or hiding behind the usual mantras that socialism would automatically solve all problems. So they present themselves as the only ones who care about any practical steps which wins them popularity.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That's exactly why the problem of overpopulation must be acknowledged and a better solution to it proposed, so that the fascists couldn't use it for their brand and political vehicle. But right now they can justifiably say that the leftists are putting their heads in the sand about the overpopulation or hiding behind the usual mantras that socialism would automatically solve all problems. So they present themselves as the only ones who care about any practical steps which wins them popularity.

But that's the thing, it's not "overpopulation" which causes the real problems of poverty, overcrowding, environmental destruction and depletion of resources. Lower populations than today caused permanent environmental problems and sometimes lived in much more overcrowded slums. So population is not the fundamental factor in the equation.

Think about a neighborhood where there were 10 family homes and a private golf course and the gold course said that the problem of water shortages was too many neighbors drinking water. The problem isn't consumption by the population - especially since many people don't have enough food and water let alone use of fuels. The problem is how resources are organized, controlled, and used.

The reason we need to ruthlessly combat the unscientific concept of overpopulation is because ceding that point and allowing the issues to be framed in this way already makes winning the class based argument impossible.

Plenty of people agree with the seemingly common sense idea that "people are too greedy for there to be equality" and many people are convinced that there are biological differences between gay and straight people or inherent aesthetic preferences by gender (boys like blue and toy trucks while girls like pink and dolls). There are even respected scientists and institutions that do research with these same unscientific assumptions and get rewarded for it.

But the idea of an abstract population limit, not matter how wide-spread is wrong from the entire premise down to the evidence. Victorians "felt" overcrowded, they had lots of pollution and lots of poverty and street children crowded into slums. Yet their population was nothing compared to what it is today.

[Zulu]

But the idea of an abstract population limit, not matter how wide-spread is wrong from the entire premise down to the evidence. Victorians "felt" overcrowded, they had lots of pollution and lots of poverty and street children crowded into slums. Yet their population was nothing compared to what it is today.

I repeat again, it's not about the number of people itself. It's about energy and waste per capita as well. And those figures are going to rise under communism. No matter how efficiently you manage those resources and how subjectively not overcrowded your rising population feel, the overall amount of heat released into the atmosphere and the ocean will continue to rise, thus accelerating the climate change.

The greenhouse gases trapping the natural sun heat in the atmosphere are just a part of the global warming. It's also about the "artificial" heat released into the atmosphere by ANY source of energy used by humans, no matter how green and renewable it might be.

As for the waste, it's true that the capitalists simply don't want to invest much in its proper disposal, so we have all sorts of damage from it. The communists will probably manage it better, but increased investment in waste management means decreased investment elsewhere in more productive lines of budget, so more people will still mean more losses coming from the waste.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I repeat again, it's not about the number of people itself. It's about energy and waste per capita as well. And those figures are going to rise under communism. No matter how efficiently you manage those resources and how subjectively not overcrowded your rising population feel, the overall amount of heat released into the atmosphere and the ocean will continue to rise, thus accelerating the climate change.Your argument is the equivalent of saying even if chemotherapy cures the cancer, you will still die eventually. Yes there are some point where the population would be too high even under a rational and democratic system which would strive for sustainability. But that is not a problem we face today.

Why would energy waste be worse in communism? Again, your premise is that each person is equally contributing to that per-capita ammount equally when:
http://grist.org/population/2011-10-26-is-the-environmental-crisis-caused-by-7-billion-or-the-1-percent/

A recent report (http://www.trucost.com/article/14/investors-set-to-increase-pressure-on-companies-causing-significant-environmental-costs) prepared by the British consulting firm Trucost for the United Nations found that just 3,000 corporations cause $2.15 trillion in environmental damage every year. Outrageous as that figure is — only six countries have a GDP greater than $2.15 trillion — it substantially understates the damage, because it excludes costs that would result from “potential high impact events such as fishery or ecosystem collapse,” and “external costs caused by product use and disposal, as well as companies’ use of other natural resources and release of further pollutants through their operations and suppliers.”

And then there's the military:

Through the government, the 1% control the U.S. military, the largest user of petroleum in the world, and thus one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Military operations produce more hazardous waste than the five largest chemical companies combined. More than 10 percent of all Superfund hazardous waste sites in the United States are on military bases.
So population can be decreased but it wouldn't mean shit for the rate of energy consumption or waste as long as capitalism remains in tact. Relatively small numbers of people destroyed the Buffalo or lakes or rivers through mining - not so that more individual people could have buffalo meat or fur or have more gold, but so that a tiny number of people could buy up the prairie land and become incredibly wealthy.

If population is the root problem, what is the answer? China had policies and their cities have become MORE overcrowded (not due to growth but due to reorganization of the economy and migration) and they have become MORE environmentally harmful despite lowering birth rates.

[Zulu]

Oops, double post.

[Zulu]

Why would energy waste be worse in communism?


Not "energy waste", but "more energy" and "more waste" (as in "toxic waste" and "scrap").





Again, your premise is that each person is equally contributing to that per-capita ammount equally when:


Well of course, "per capita" means "on average", so it doesn't really matter who pays the bill, everyone is considered to put in an equal share.





If population is the root problem, what is the answer?

Right now it's not, but it will be and the answer will be birth control.

You correctly point out that the unequal distribution of the energy bill will ensure that if the fascists get on with their genocidal program, they will solve little. But, when the communists get to power, they aren't going to dismiss the US army. They will send it on a mission to deliver food to all the hungry people around the world, and then put those hungry people to some work, like cleaning oil spills, and that will require MORE ENERGY.

And more energy means more climate change. So one of the first things the communists should do is to establish some kind of a "one child" policy so that the population gradually, over a span of several generations would decrease, thus decreasing (or at least conserving) the overall amount of energy consumption, even though it will be at a higher per capita level than now.

And to give you some impressive reference, humanity now annually consumes energy that equals millions! of Hiroshima and Nagasaki yields. Of course, not all of it is transformed into heat, and much of the heat gets radiated into space anyway, but still, if one day Earth gets turned into a Venusian hell world, don't say, you weren't warned. Oh, wait...





China had policies and their cities have become MORE overcrowded (not due to growth but due to reorganization of the economy and migration) and they have become MORE environmentally harmful despite lowering birth rates.
So imagine what would have happened if they didn't have that policy? Their cities would have been even more overcrowded, workers would have been paid even less, etc...


And by the way, even if you feed and clothe everybody, it doesn't mean there is no scarcity in your society. People always need something, so you have to provide them with access to education, health care, entertainment, etc., all of good quality. And you have to measure the total population Earth "can sustain" by the lowest accessible resource. I guarantee you this approach will prove to be problematic even without the impending climate disaster.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Not "energy waste", but "more energy" and "more waste" (as in "toxic waste" and "scrap").Why do you assume this to be true. More people might mean more private additions, but as I showed in the quotes, many of the worst sources of these things are not connected to popular consumption but to things like the military. Getting rid of the US air force alone would do a lot more than some birth control of working class people.


Well of course, "per capita" means "on average", so it doesn't really matter who pays the bill, everyone is considered to put in an equal share.But that's my point! Everyone ISN'T contributing to the problems of pollution equally. Not to mention, workers are not the ones who decided it was good to have freeways, no public transit, and suburban developments 20 miles away from major industrial and other employers.

If the economy was run democratically for human needs rather than profit, the incentive would not be to do things that create tons of profits as quickly as possible, consequences be damned but how to produce only what we need and desire as easily and sustainably as possible. Workers would not want to design things that had to be replaced all the time, they'd want computers that could be easily adapted to new programming, they'd want to get rid of the need to produce redundant things like a CD player separate from a computer separate from the TV, etc. There'd be an incentive to figure out transportation that was efficient. Why grow oranges in Florida to sell in California after shipping it across the country? Why grow rice in California to ship and then sell in China? In fact one of my favorite pet post-revolution dreams is urban farming in large high-risises. The technology exists now and it would cut out a ton of transportation, it would free huge swaths of land from mono-culture cash crops, it would clean air and filter water and eliminate the need for pesticides. This was published in a pop-sci magazine and the engineers said it would be easy, but no privite companies want to invest in this when it would take a decade to see profits return and land is cheep and subsidized. It's the same with alternaitve energy - there are lots of possibilities, but the profit motive means that it's better to keep going with the same infrastructure rather than disrupt the profits of the auto and transportation industries not to mention energy companies.


Right now it's not, but it will be and the answer will be birth control.Yet the world-wide rate of population growth is slowing and will fall according to UN studies. At the same time environmental problems are accelerating. Reducing the population will do nothing if production is still organized around profit.


So imagine what would have happened if they didn't have that policy? Their cities would have been even more overcrowded, workers would have been paid even less, etc...No, they wouldn't have been able to develop their industry, so this is an abstract question. Besides this is a totally unscientific answer: it's like when people question the US Patriot Act and the government says: "well you haven't been bombed have you?" I gave an example of how population curbs didn't curb pollution or overcrowding and yet you say it STILL backs up your claim!


And by the way, even if you feed and clothe everybody, it doesn't mean there is no scarcity in your society. People always need something, so you have to provide them with access to education, health care, entertainment, etc., all of good quality. And you have to measure the total population Earth "can sustain" by the lowest accessible resource. I guarantee you this approach will prove to be problematic even without the impending climate disaster.I also disagree with this. The artificial scarcity of capitalism causes people to have to horde products. If there's no public transportation or if it's unreliable and inconvenient, then people will want and need individual cars. Since it's a huge expense and hard to take care of, people probably aren't going to lend the car to other people and so you get a situation where thousands of people driving the same places all have their own privitized transportation. If there was easy, free and reliable public transportation, people would not have this need. Maybe instead a community has a fleet 1 car for every 10 residents and if you need to go somewhere that you can't get to on public transit or if you need to haul a lot of stuff, you can go and pick up a car when you need it.

Or food waste. A community communal kitchen would use a lot less energy than each home making a small meal every night.

There are tons of things that could be done that would have more of an impact than a child prohibition policy, but the barrier is the profit system.

[workersadvocate]

And these guys complaining about overpopulation and inevitable doom dissed me as a 'Startrekkie' for implying that humanity may be extending out into the Cosmos in the future.
Then they say, look at China, they know how to solve the problem...and these guys are supposed to be environmentalist?!
Why don't they just admit it...they were arguing for "weeding" the world's population by reducing the numbers of people in the "Third World".
Their logic would have to conclude that in their view, any significant improvement of the lives of the majority of humanity puts all human life and the planet itself in serious danger, so to heck with advancing human progress and a better world for all, we let an elite based on 'quality' survive (wonder what this 'quality' standard is supposed survive, while making those of supposedly inferior 'quality' reduce population numbers.

This crap could have come straight out of William Pierce's radio rants!

[NoMasters]

We should not colonize other planets because we haven't even colonised our own oceans yet. Colonizing our own planet, which has sufficient quantities of atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen, is a much easier undertaking then colonising other planets.



The extermination of fish populations is actually one reason I am a vegan, so I am pretty familiar with this issue. A large part of this process is the oil spills, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which have significantly exacerbated the problem. This is all the more reason that we should reduce our dependence on oil imports by using nuclear fission, see ignorance about nuclear power is killing us (http://russp.us/BLC-1.html).

Despite all of these problems, I remain optimistic that a future socialist society will be able recover from them in order to colonise the oceans and satisfy all of our material needs.

Plus 1 on being vegan!

However, do not blame most of it on oil spills and nuclear fission.

I mean of course they are factors, but the tragedy of the commons seems to be the destruction of the fish population. But you can make an argument in your favor.

I just don't see that being a large part of it, we over fish because of our supply and demand for the fish markets, and their is no jurisdiction on how to fish, at least they can't be enforced even if there is.

I have proposed somewhat cynically but also seriously that we should create a Navy of the Environment with Paul Watson as the Admiral. Hahaha

[kuros]

Kuros asked, "Can you give me any rational reason we should not colonize other planets?" Sure. Our task is to "colonize" Earth with communist, natural relations. We cannot run away from our Earthly problems.

For that matter, who wants to live in a bubble in hostile terrain?

1. I meant after we have went communist :rolleyes: If we human beings want to survive for long we will have to colonise other planets, since our own sun will burn out, this will also eliminate the overpopulation problem since people will have other places to live.

2. We should terraform the planets before we colonise them.

[CommunityBeliever]

And more energy means more climate change.

Nuclear energy and solar power don't create considerable climate changes. Furthermore, a sufficiently advanced communist can remove CO₂, N₂O, CH₄, and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.


They will send it on a mission to deliver food to all the hungry people around the world, and then put those hungry people to some work, like cleaning oil spills, and that will require MORE ENERGY.

Indeed, energy consumption will continue to increase. By increasing our use of uranium breeder reactors and nuclear reprocessing, well also taking advantage of thorium fission, we can meet increasing energy needs. Later on we can use nuclear fusion to help power vast interplanetary construction projects such as terraforming Mars and constructing dyson spheres.


And these guys complaining about overpopulation and inevitable doom dissed me as a 'Startrekkie' for implying that humanity may be extending out into the Cosmos in the future.


If we human beings want to survive for long we will have to colonise other planets, this will also eliminate the overpopulation problem since people will have other places to live.

Colonising other planets won't be a practical possibility for a very long time. Colonising our own oceans with floating cities is a far more practical possibility because we will still have access to our atmosphere's oxygen and nitrogen for breathing.

[Zulu]

Why do you assume this to be true. More people might mean more private additions, but as I showed in the quotes, many of the worst sources of these things are not connected to popular consumption but to things like the military. Getting rid of the US air force alone would do a lot more than some birth control of working class people.

But the communists will only EXPAND the public sector! They will not be getting rid of the USAF, they'll just repurpose it to serve the society in better ways than bombing people for the glory of the transnational capital. If anything, "getting rid" of the USAF would add to unemployment, and not only of the former USAF personnel, but also of all the people who supply the USAF with the damned oil, bombs, electronics and other stuff, and unemployment is quite the contrary to what's in the communist program.




Everyone ISN'T contributing to the problems of pollution equally. Not to mention, workers are not the ones who decided it was good to have freeways, no public transit, and suburban developments 20 miles away from major industrial and other employers.
Yeah, but a post back you brought up China's environmental problems, and those are present despite the fact that there are no "suburban developments 20 miles away from industrial centers", and until very recently public transit along with bicycle traffic were relied on most heavily for transportation. So it's not really a matter of a particular model of development, it's about the capitalist mode of production in general, which (among other things) has led to the population explosion, which now exacerbates the problems of scarcity and pollution and is becoming a problem itself, as the energy consumption rises. And it doesn't matter if it's "private", or "public", or "corporate", because either way the energy consumption serves this purpose or that to facilitate the economic activity and through it the life of the mankind itself. And by the way even capitalism has already come quite a long way towards efficient energy management, simply because energy is such a universal commodity.




Workers would not want to design things that had to be replaced all the time, they'd want computers that could be easily adapted to new programming, they'd want to get rid of the need to produce redundant things like a CD player separate from a computer separate from the TV, etc. There'd be an incentive to figure out transportation that was efficient.
Generally that's true, but it is still a very complex task to make the transition to the socialist mode of production. Even if we're able to manage the shifts in employment and associated training, we'll still need to heavily invest in the research and development of new technologies, rebuilding the infrastructure, etc., which will take a lot of energy: and the larger the target population, the more energy it'll take.





Yet the world-wide rate of population growth is slowing and will fall according to UN studies. At the same time environmental problems are accelerating.
Aaaand don't you see a correlation here?





Reducing the population will do nothing if production is still organized around profit.
Yes. Because organization for profit requires population growth. I am not proposing to solve capitalism's problems through reducing the population, because the main capitalism's problem is capitalism. I just say that, once capitalism is history, and the world goes socialist, it'll have to deal with the problems inherited from capitalism, such as environmental damage, climate change, and overpopulation, which are largely just different sides of the same problem, called the upset equilibrium of the Earth's global ecosystem.




No, they wouldn't have been able to develop their industry, so this is an abstract question. Besides this is a totally unscientific answer: it's like when people question the US Patriot Act and the government says: "well you haven't been bombed have you?" I gave an example of how population curbs didn't curb pollution or overcrowding and yet you say it STILL backs up your claim!
That's not the same as the Patriot Act, and it does back my claim. You have to not mix up the causes and the consequences. The terrorist activities are largely the result of the oligarchy's desire to establish surveillance over the population. So they just use "1984" as a textbook. They want to pass the Patriot act, so they LIHOP-MIHOP the 9/11, and pass the Patriot Act. And why do they want to have the Patriot Act is quite self-evident. But why would the CPC want to have this "one child" policy, if it were only creating social tension, but not solving any problems or serving any purpose of the CPC? What's the secret purpose of the "one child" policy?

Also, I must say, that you have a pretty strange take on what's scientific and what isn't. Than bunch of theories you mentioned are all quite legit, at least as theories, pending verification. And last I heard, LGBT folks were themselves insisting that "God made them that way" in America (i.e. they have biological differences). And these your ideas about public and private transportation are completely off. In reality, it's simply socially prestigious to have a car, so there is a huge demand for private transportation, which the capital is happy to meet.




Nuclear energy and solar power don't create considerable climate changes. Furthermore, a sufficiently advanced communist can remove CO?, N?O, CH?, and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
Nuclear energy still produces heat, which will continue to be trapped in the atmosphere by those gases, even if we stop emitting them. And most climate models now suggest that the emission of methane will still continue uncontrolled, due to the thaw of the permafrost, which has been already triggered. And even a sufficiently advanced communist society (which is not happening too soon) will not be able to remove all the CO2, because it is essential for the life cycle. Thus, even the nuclear energy will continue to heat up the atmosphere, albeit at a slower pace than the fossil fuels.





Colonising other planets won't be a practical possibility for a very long time. Colonising our own oceans with floating cities is a far more practical possibility because we will still have access to our atmosphere's oxygen and nitrogen for breathing.
I agree, that space colonization will take a lot of time to get really started with. Which is rather a reason to go for it sooner than later. As for the floating cities, I can't see any practical applicability for them, except science and some very specific purposes, such as, for example, a launch platform for a space elevator.