Communism, over populations, and the Environment...

[SkepticEpileptic]

On this planet there are currently 7.2 billion people and growing. All these people are consumerists, raised from birth to take what they can for as little as they can, while giving back little to none. Research has shown that the earth can sustain 14 billion people, but only in the poorest conditions; however the research also shows that in order to have a much higher standard of living, the earth could sustain 4 billion people. While the replacement rates in devoloped countries are relatively even, less developed countries have replacement rates that are through the roof. Because the birth rate is higher than the death rate, we gain around 9,000 new passengers every hour; and by 2050 we will be over the point of sustainability, and with all the extra people, our current rate of consumption will become even more unsustainable. This of course will in turn deplete our earth of the things that sustain life upon the earth. So with this, what are some ways to either maintain or reduce the population by 2050, while staying with in the parameters of being humane *i.e. no genocide or things such as that*

[cyu]

For each person writing for a rich man's think tank, that is one less person producing food, and one more person for farmers to feed. For each person on a rich man's legal team, that's one less person producing health care, and one more person for doctors to treat. For each person patrolling a rich man's real estate, that is one less person building homes, and one more person for home builders to house. For each politician taking bribes from the rich, that is one less person producing clothes, and one more person for sweatshop workers to support.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

On this planet there are currently 7.2 billion people and growing. All these people are consumerists, raised from birth to take what they can for as little as they can, while giving back little to none.

So where do you figure most of the stuff we use comes from, magical space fairies? Most people in fact "give back" more than they take. That's sort of how capitalism works.

The population growth in the periphery of the imperialist system is sustained by poverty and the oppression of women. By giving every woman education, guaranteed food, water, shelter and protection, and free access to contraception and abortion on demand, socialism will lead to much lower growth rates.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Population growth is not exponential, it's projected to top off around 11 or 12 billion before crashing. As child life expectancy increases people begin having fewer children, this is true across all cultures. Existing poverty is due to scarcity but this scarcity is artificially enforced, this will still be true when there are 12 billion people on the planet. Any schemes intentionally targeting population growth are reactionary in nature. The key to reducing population growth is by eliminating poverty and promoting women's rights and education internationally, not sterilization or state enforced limits to births.

[cyu]

So where do you figure most of the stuff we use comes from, magical space fairies? Most people in fact "give back" more than they take. That's sort of how capitalism works.



Right. The carrying capacity of an area is different depending on whether you're talking about humans or other animals. The main difference is that humans make many changes (ie. agriculture) to their geography. What this means is that you don't simply count the people and add up the surface area, you also have to take into account the economic activity those humans engage in.

All else being equal, 100 people working on agriculture in an area, would have a different carrying capacity compared to 50 people working on agriculture, while 49 others work as sexual or political prostitutes for the rich.

http://ecolocalizer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/wealthgapmap.jpg

[Rafiq]

Population sustainability has nothing to do with the "Earths natural capacity", which is virtually infinite. More advanced modes of production and more efficient utilization of resources necessarily can sustain more people. Feudal relations couldn't sustain nearly the same amount of people that we have today. It is rather sick that not only do people assume our present order is synonymous with our capacity as a species to survive, but that our choice is framed with the "hard question" of what is faintly implied as genocide. Capital has equipped men and women with the capacity to annihilate whole nations to sustain its hunger. We are nearly ready to sacrifice whole populations to the gods of global capital.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Better living standards will be brought about by working class militancy. Population decreases won't do anything, capitalism cares fuck all whether there's enough resources for everybody

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm pretty sure the global population is already projected to stabilise around 10 billion and then gradually fall.

Also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezVk1ahRF78

Also:

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/

Also: these numbers, if accurate, also severely underestimate human creativity. Vertical agriculture and developing organic-based resource substitutions (e.g. organic reproducible/growable material stronger than steel) could mean a huge carrying capacity for earth.

[Rudolf]

Wait, isn't this just the same shite from Malthus? You know the claim that our powers of reproduction increase at a faster rate than our powers of production? It's just fucking stupid. Even today with hundreds of millions out of work, even more without access to appropriate equipment to multiply their productive endeavours, not to mention all the capitalists and those whose labour is squandered on things that serves no purpose outside this mode of production, there is still enough produced to feed and clothe everyone and to provide comfort to all... No, our productive capabilities outstrip our reproductive capabilities and with the destruction of the law of value our productive capabilities will exceed our wildest dreams like how the productive capabilities now exceed the wildest dreams of those in bygone eras.

Rafiq has said it before me, all this shite is is an implied threat of genocide.

[Tim Cornelis]

Wait, isn't this just the same shite from Malthus? You know the claim that our powers of reproduction increase at a faster rate than our powers of production? It's just fucking stupid. Even today with hundreds of millions out of work, even more without access to appropriate equipment to multiply their productive endeavours, not to mention all the capitalists and those whose labour is squandered on things that serves no purpose outside this mode of production, there is still enough produced to feed and clothe everyone and to provide comfort to all... No, our productive capabilities outstrip our reproductive capabilities and with the destruction of the law of value our productive capabilities will exceed our wildest dreams like how the productive capabilities now exceed the wildest dreams of those in bygone eras.

Rafiq has said it before me, all this shite is is an implied threat of genocide.

Production requires resources, and most used resources are non-renewable so increased powers of production means faster depletion. That's the argument, not whether we have the productive potential measured in labour-power and technology. We have the throughput potential, but do we have the input potential?

[Rafiq]

Production requires resources, and most used resources are non-renewable so increased powers of production means faster depletion. That's the argument, not whether we have the productive potential measured in labour-power and technology. We have the throughput potential, but do we have the input potential?

Consequential of any revolution in any productive order necessarily designates a revolution in energy. The crucial aspect being ignored is that capital has for decades hindered the development and implementation of more efficient uses of resources and energy. We are talking about multi-billion dollar industries which would simply crumble: Such powers which sustain the existing order itself would be willing to use everything at their disposal to prevent this.

[BIXX]

Eh. I'm not really of the opinion we really should (or can) do anything about it, rather that we are just fucked and should enjoy the ride.

[Lord Testicles]

Eh. I'm not really of the opinion we really should (or can) do anything about it, rather that we are just fucked and should enjoy the ride.

If the bourgeoisie can't count on your support I guess your indifference is the next best thing.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If the bourgeoisie can't count on your support I guess your indifference is the next best thing.

What really gets me every time is how obsessed these people are with letting everyone know they don't care. I mean if you were really indifferent instead of trying to be cool and interesting you couldn't give a fuck about writing these long "IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU KNOW THAT I DON'T CARE" posts.

[Ele'ill]

I think a big part of the overpopulation scare has to do with how dense populations are geographically speaking, in pockets,- massive ghettos and urban sprawl. I think the presence of cities in their current state also adds to this and this obviously has to do with the concept of work, domestication, production, and our assimilation into a society of workers.

[Rafiq]

I think a big part of the overpopulation scare has to do with how dense populations are geographically speaking, in pockets,- massive ghettos and urban sprawl.

Precisely. People articulate the world within proximity of their world, their living environments. So there is truth to the fact that our sphere of life is getting overpopulated - it is our duty, however, as radicals to attack the notion that this is synonymous with our condition of possibility - to demand that if the world is becoming overpopulated, the solution is to change the world.

[Decolonize The Left]

What really gets me every time is how obsessed these people are with letting everyone know they don't care. I mean if you were really indifferent instead of trying to be cool and interesting you couldn't give a fuck about writing these long "IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU KNOW THAT I DON'T CARE" posts.

Sure, but being disenfranchised, depressed, and unenthused about the meta-problems of the planet is not the person's fault; it is a result of the conditions in which they live. With every expanse of the human field of existence, from when the stars ceased to be immobile objects in the sky and became far off things in space (probably long before this but it's a good example), people have felt less in control, less powerful, and, as a result, less of a need to care.

The point is not to ridicule people for feeling the way they do, but to find ways to bridge this gap in feeling, to--in essence--make life meaningful.

[bricolage]

yeah most of it's been already said. overpopulation is bullshit because,

1. most of what it looks at is overcrowding in certain areas not overpopulation - a result of still ongoing primitive accumulation (i.e the million odd Chinese that every month or whatever leave the countryside for the city) and uneven development within countries and regions.
2. overpopulation turns a social issue into a demographic one, turns a political issue into a biological one, and so forth.
3. it completely ignores potential technological developments - not that I'm of the opinion that 'OH MY GOD TECHNOLOGY WILL SAVE US' but it does make predictions a bit limited. in any case most predictions do predict population eventually levelling off.
4. there's enough food/energy anyway, it's not an issue of scarcity but of uneven distribution.
5. it's mostly racist, always an issue of too many immigrants or too many children in parts of africa or asia. most overpopulation theorists would probably be quite at home with early 20th C eugenicists imo. for example the optimum population trust in the UK (which has some pretty big name supporters) had this campaign where you essentially sponsored birth control for someone in sub-saharan africa so they wouldn't have children, now there are plenty really good reasons to provide birth control across the world but doing it so that someone black doesn't have children so that you (someone white) can feel better about climate change is a really shit one. climate change is really really real but overpopulation is a side issue, a way to shift blame onto mostly poor mostly non-white people for having too many children as opposed to the states and commercial institutions that shoulder most of the blame.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Sure, but being disenfranchised, depressed, and unenthused about the meta-problems of the planet is not the person's fault; it is a result of the conditions in which they live. With every expanse of the human field of existence, from when the stars ceased to be immobile objects in the sky and became far off things in space (probably long before this but it's a good example), people have felt less in control, less powerful, and, as a result, less of a need to care.

The point is not to ridicule people for feeling the way they do, but to find ways to bridge this gap in feeling, to--in essence--make life meaningful.

I don't see what stars have to do with anything. The point was that PC is not someone who feels "disenfranchised, depressed, and unenthused about the meta-problems of the planet", because someone who was genuinely unenthusiastic wouldn't make such a big deal of it to the point that they show up in almost every thread to announce that they don't care. It's just the latest special snowflake act.

Seriously, how do stars being in space make people feel less in control? I mean, what.

[Rafiq]

Seriously, how do stars being in space make people feel less in control? I mean, what.

Russian cosmists dealt with this specifically - that our expanded knowledge of existence had created an unfulfilled noosphere (I.e. whereby conforming our minds to an ever more expansive environment was perceivably possible but had yet to occur). One could argue two things (but not both, perhaps)

1. Capitalism constrains our ability to conquer the cosmos and in doing so expanding our environment, our space of living and thinking to the cosmos.

2. Our expansive understanding of the cosmos has been weaponized to mystify our present conditions of meaning, I.e. where we perceive existence as "So above, as bellow" rather than the reverse. Kind of a perverse astrology whereby our standards of purpose and meaning are cosmically expanded - adopting a "cosmic perspective" only to substantiate the conditions of life here ignorant of the fact that how we PERCEIVE space is defined by our petty life-being, and all of its antagonisms here on Earth.

So it's not a ridiculous point at all, PC aside.