Population reduction

[butterfly]

Is the only means of maintaining sustainable industrial development and obtaining adequate living standards for all, population reduction?

In previous posts the reduction of consumption seem's to hit a nerve with some people so I thought I'd take a new approach.

The construction of any current technology on a scale required to reverse the effects has the possibility to do quite the opposite.

It has been suggested that poverty reduction would equate to population reduction due to increased access to family planning, but i'm not sure this takes into account the increased lifespan that would come with adequate living standards??

The basis of the contention is that current technology can only form part of the solution. Any thoughts?

[Lynx]

A demographic projection takes into account the effects of increased lifespan, birth rate and death rates. If predicted human population trends are accurate I don't see how we can avoid its realization. Events from the past have already determined what the population will be in the future.

[Sentinel]

It has been suggested that poverty reduction would equate to population reduction due to increased access to family planning, but i'm not sure this takes into account the increased lifespan that would come with adequate living standards??

In the nordic countries for instance, exactly as many people die and are born. I'm confident that should the living standards, access to secular education etc in the third world be elevated to the same level, the very same effect would be seen.

Humans will live longer, but the problem has so far clearly been at the other end; too many are born. I'm optimistic that should this evening of conditions happen relatively soon, we could feed all humans currently alive -- as long as it would include the optimising of production and distribution.

Of course in reality many famines will yet be seen, as global capitalism is as powerful as it is.

[Vanguard1917]

No, population reduction is a reactionary demand which has traditionally been associated with the right, as we discussed in detail in this recent thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/neo-malthusianism-split-t88912/index.html



In previous posts the reduction of consumption seem's to hit a nerve with some people so I thought I'd take a new approach.



That's because this is forum for leftists who want to see mass prosperity and increased living standards for all. We're kind of opposed to people who want to make human beings poorer.

[butterfly]

No actually VG the sad difference between you and me is that I am prepared to give up a lavish lifestyle, which many in the West have been conditioned to believe is a necessity, to avoid mass famines. What do you want? A Che T?

[Vanguard1917]

You may have a lavish lifestyle (which wouldn't be much of a surprise since the overwhelming majority of environmentalists come from middle and upper class backgrounds), but the masses don't.

If you're campaigning to reduce the living standards of the working class, you have positioned yourself as a direct enemy of working people.

[butterfly]

I would still like to know what your definition of 'living standards' is exactly, until you have explained that no comparison can be drawn.

[Vanguard1917]

That's for those of us who wish to raise it to decide. In the process, we will probably need to eradicate those following the bosses in attacking working class living standards.

[butterfly]

Revolution (the successful kind) isn't going to take place in our lifetime and may never take place if the earth becomes uninhabitable, the point at which climate change is irreversible will.

[Vanguard1917]

Revolution (the successful kind) isn't going to take place in our lifetime


It's not going to take place if we don't make it happen. Environmentalism, of course, is a kind of capitalist conformism because it argues that capitalism is already giving way to too much economic development and progress. It provides apologism for the capitalist system by excusing its number one flaw - i.e. its inability to provide necessary economic development.



never take place if the earth becomes uninhabitable


Again, eco-fantasies. The world has never before been better suited to human inhabitation than it is today. That fact the 6.7 billion people are on average leading longer, healthier, safer and wealthier lives on earth than ever before in the history of mankind is evidence of this. The point is to take this progress even further, by smashing the economic system which restrains progress.

[Rascolnikova]

Probably, we first-worlders need to substantially scale back consumption to make things work. This is probably true even after adjustments for technological advance and the practice of creating things to last (instead of break) become standard.

However, on a practical front, there's a relatively painless approach that also needs to be exhausted and could have far greater impact. It appears that there's an extremely strong correlation between the education level of a woman and how many children she chooses to have. The education level of the mother is also a strong predictor of a child's health. These are stronger correlations than the (also substantial) one between wealth and family size.

I understand that I'm taking liberties with cause and effect, but even on the off chance, it strikes me as a very worthwhile strategy to make the education of girls--alongside aggressive development, education, and distribution for better birth control--high priority.

Based on this foundation, it seems likely that the global population would voluntarily go into a state of decline, such as is seen throughout Europe. At the same time, the quality of the labor pool increases. It's good for quality of life on all sorts of levels.

[Sendo]

It stands to history that stable standards of living and material security and (with today's advances and low infant mortality) sexual education keep populations stable.

India never had the crazy population explosion until the English crown took over. We shouldn't advocate killing or letting people die in some neo-Malthusian manner, but we should acknowledge that the 3rd world can't sustain high birth rates unless it wants to experience mass waves of starvation in the coming years. I know VG would encourage industrialization of the 3rd world. But if we're gonna play pretend, and we can just change the combined 1st/3rd world development/specialization model, then why don't we just wish for stable living conditions (hence stable populations) and more local food sovereignty, hell, maybe even a socialist society.

Why VG keeps campaigning for capitalist development is beyond me. I'd rather fight for socialism.

[Vanguard1917]

India never had the crazy population explosion until the English crown took over.


One of the reasons for the increase in population rates in India, along with other developing countries, was wider access to modern medicine, which allowed people to live longer.

Unfortunate, wasn't it?



We shouldn't advocate killing or letting people die in some neo-Malthusian manner,

Really?? That's nice of you.

I see there's a 'but' though:



but we should acknowledge that the 3rd world can't sustain high birth rates unless it wants to experience mass waves of starvation in the coming years.


Blaming hunger on the existence of the masses, rather than on the economic system - that is Malthusianism.



I know VG would encourage industrialization of the 3rd world.


Yeah, so do all Marxists.



Why VG keeps campaigning for capitalist development is beyond me.

I'm an anti-capitalist because i believe capitalism holds back economic development.



I'd rather fight for socialism.


Mass industrialisation is a pre-condition for socialism - at least for those who accept the materialist, Marxist perspective.

Socialism = workers' power + electrification of the whole of society (to paraphrase Lenin)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This might sound trite, but revolution is the solution.

Revolution in the first world will at once eliminate the ruling class's jaw-droppingly excessive consumption in the form of absurd luxury "industries" and military spending, and free up a lot of labour formerly used in those and other wasteful "services" such as the army of bureaucrats that modern capitalism requires. This would increase productivity yet would reduce everyone's working hours due to guaranteed employment. After manufacturing capability is restored in the first world, longer lasting, more durable, easily repaired and better constructed goods will be available, meaning that the first world will no longer rely on third-world labour and less materials and energy will be wasted, which can only be good for the environment.

In the third world, revolution of any kind throws off the imperialist yoke holding them back, enabling them to greatly improve their own living standards and thus bring birth rates crashing down.

The tendency of environmentalism is to encourage reformism and lifestylism - "vote Green" and "Consume less". The problem with the former is that reformism doesn't work, and the problem with the latter is that it will never compensate for the excesses of the bourgeouisie and state-sponsored environmental damage.

[Sendo]

Vg, you sound witty, but you don't seem to show that you have any idea what you're talking about. You sound like some Left artifact from the 1930s with a host of talking points.

When I said, "but the 3rd world can't sustain its current birth rate unless it wants to suffer waves of starvation" I'm saying, that we have to admit there is a coming problem. I never said humanity or the Earth could not sustain those numbers. In our current economic system they will starve. You can make idealist claims that we need to respect the glory of unbridled conception and birth like some old school Catholic all you want, but I'd rather not see children suffer.

For already existing children I suggest helping them out, not labeling them excess population; I am not a Malthusian.

As for my comments on India, it's pretty much accepted in progressive circles that population crises are caused by the fear of death. For a modernist you seem to love the idea that people have to give birth like they were Dark Ages peasants.

Poor people have more kids than rich people for a reason!!
For one, they live in fear that the kids might die before age 5. When that happens they have as many kids as possible. We produce and distribute more food than we did a thousand years ago, so survival rates are higher. There might be poor families who have seven children live, there might be poor families who have four kids and only one lives...we don't know how survival rates might be distributed. Either way, we now have two couples with eight children. This will make the population explode.

So why do poor people have so many children? To pass on their heirlooms? Or maybe to have providers as they age? This is so sad and primitive. People live in such fear of being unsupported late in life that they sometimes choose to have children for the sake of having providers in twenty years.

Or the poor people have no access to contraception. I don't really think poor people like getting pregnant all the time. As human beings and parents they love each of their children once born and develop bonds as they live together. But I can't imagine poor people are like "I enjoy going through life-risking childbirth, not to mention having to get food while being unable to work!"

This has never been about saying who can and can't have children. I've been saying obvious things like "don't let children die" because I don't want Vg1917 making strawmen. His remarks on issues like these illustrate limited research on his part. His comments on India assume that colonization not only introduced but distributed new medical technology. He also seems to take a paternalist view of colonial history. Not surprising, since he wants the world (every indigenous American, every brown skinned man woman and child) to follow European-style capitalist-style industrialization. He sees it as a universal good even though many non-Europeans disagree. If you are European descended (like many on this board) and disagree he will accuse of not respecting the brown peoples of the world enough to enforce industrialization.

No one here wants to keep people living in an ancient society who don't want to be, but no one wants them to industrialize against their wishes. Here's an idea, we could ask them what they want. Guess what? Most peoples who were colonized by the West before don't want corporate globbalization today.

Going back to my original point, population booms/crises/explosions/blossomings/whatver are the result of capitalist globalization. Populations of the third world have exploded in the past century in areas hurt by economic globalization. Welfare states like Scandinavia have populations in equilibrium as someone previously mentioned.

[Sendo]

The tendency of environmentalism is to encourage reformism and lifestylism - "vote Green" and "Consume less". The problem with the former is that reformism doesn't work, and the problem with the latter is that it will never compensate for the excesses of the bourgeouisie and state-sponsored environmental damage.

You're right in what you're saying, but not how you clarify it.

Lifestylism, luxury nature "parks", someday-on-the-horizon reformism are all features of bourgeois, First World environmentalism.

Bourgeois environmentalism is not the only type. There is value-based environmentalism...some indigenous Americans want an environment that was as beautiful as their forefathers kept it, some people want a natural environment for their children, some people think clean water is more of a human right than highways and Plasma TVs. There is also environmentalism of the poor, popular in Latin America and parts of Asia and Africa which wants a sustainable ecology from which we can harvest exotic plants and animals, a sustainable ecology that will allow farmers to make healthy non-factory food for more than one season at a time (an issue in countries where people are forced to chop down the forest to get farmland because companies own and speculate on all the good land).

We must research our arguments and not rely on caricatures to get our points on across. We must be specific and not generalize, either.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Bourgeois environmentalism is not the only type. There is value-based environmentalism...

The problem is that the environmental positions you mention are necessarily the minority. "Being green" has been appropriated by many capitalists and the ruling class, with the result that environmentalism's most banal and ineffective incarnation is the one that gets blared from the television, radio and newspapers. This is usually accompanied by a distinct failure of imagination on the part of most environmentalists as well as a noticeable dislike of solutions based on science and/or engineering as opposed to vague notions of "sustainability".

Meanwhile, in the third world, those most effected by environmental damage are the ones least powerless to combat it. If and when they kick out the imperialists and overthrow their old ruling classes, then at least any environmental damage that will occur will be in the service of ultimately improving living conditions. Plus of course, they will be more equipped to clean up their own mess.

[Forward Union]

I don't believe population reduction is neccisary. And I don't know any credible sources that state that.

From what I understand we have the capacity to feed the entire population 3 times over. And our capacity is far from maximum. The key issue is that the distribution of food is uneven, and most of it goes to a tiny percent. So I dare say their livingstandards may drop. But who gives a shit?

Populations rise and fall depending (partly) on societies ability to cater for their needs. We don't need to plan population decline, it will happen naturally if it needs to. But I'd argue that it doesn't.

[Lynx]

Effective lobbying in the present system requires money. Then again, if environmentalists did have large amounts of money, their freedom to promote their ideas would actually become the power to have them implemented, regardless if those ideas are advisable.

[butterfly]

Populations rise and fall depending (partly) on societies ability to cater for their needs. We don't need to plan population decline, it will happen naturally if it needs to. But I'd argue that it doesn't.
What isn't natural is the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere and the effect it has on a communities ability to survive.
Look at Tuvalu, it's culture is beautiful and unique, it holds knowledge that we can learn from, music we can appreciate, along with the 16,000 islands that make up Indonesia.
But the water is polluted, food production is scarce, and the 11,000 strong population has unsucesfully sought refuge in numerous countries.
I want clean drinking water not plasma TV's.
This is the real tragedy of our generation.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

If its ever needed.

Secularism

Propper sex ed

Change in that fucking stupid culture where being a "success" is settling down with three kids a house and a car and a wife. (nothing wrong with that but alot of people see themselves as being failures if they dont have kids)

[Sendo]

Why don't more people just adopt. Is it really hard to do, or are people just into spreading their seed? (a natural want, of course)

[Rascolnikova]

If its ever needed.

Secularism

Propper sex ed

Change in that fucking stupid culture where being a "success" is settling down with three kids a house and a car and a wife. (nothing wrong with that but alot of people see themselves as being failures if they dont have kids)


I want three kids, a house, and a wife!

I have a car.

Seriously. . education level of the mother is a much more consistent predictor of small family size than anything else. Spreading secularism is going to be an uphill battle, especially if labeled as such; spreading education for women requires someone to be willing to come off as a douche if they want to argue against it.

Arguably, education for women is the best way to spread secularism as well, if that's what you're after. Women as a group are substantially less secular then men, at the moment. .

[JorgeLobo]

More high school level sophomoric whining. Learn some science - in a geological sense much greater (much much greater) levels of carbon dioxide are "natural" as all carbon fixed as coal, crude oil, etc. was once carbon dioxide that was fixed by the evolution of photosynthesis. This process also released a toxic gas (oxygen) that wiped out a substantial portion of the life at that time.

Tuvula disappearance is a ecoactivist hope - it's been washed out before and even if their hopeful projections are realized, we lose nothing if it's true but the activist can be noble and predict more disaster. Admit it - you knew nothing of it before the hype started and little of it now (gotta love the "beautiful and unique culture" - lol - tell us all about it!!).

The best thing you worriers can do about overpopulation is to do us a favor and off yourself.

[butterfly]

^and you're the one worrying that bacteria and mould should have universal rights:laugh:

[Rascolnikova]

The best thing you worriers can do about overpopulation is to do us a favor and off yourself.

But my favorite way to fight overpopulation is troll hunting. :)

[Lynx]

I'm not optimistic anything will be done to prevent global warming. Tuvalu will go underwater and oil drilling will begin in the Arctic Ocean.

I'm not optimistic the current system can make long term plans to adjust to short term climate change. It will be crisis management as per usual.

:(

[Sendo]

More high school level sophomoric whining. Learn some science - in a geological sense much greater (much much greater) levels of carbon dioxide are "natural" as all carbon fixed as coal, crude oil, etc. was once carbon dioxide that was fixed by the evolution of photosynthesis. This process also released a toxic gas (oxygen) that wiped out a substantial portion of the life at that time.

Tuvula disappearance is a ecoactivist hope - it's been washed out before and even if their hopeful projections are realized, we lose nothing if it's true but the activist can be noble and predict more disaster. Admit it - you knew nothing of it before the hype started and little of it now (gotta love the "beautiful and unique culture" - lol - tell us all about it!!).

The best thing you worriers can do about overpopulation is to do us a favor and off yourself.

Some people worried about this in 1989 (like NASA's Hansen who discovered the phenomenon). Others have kept up with it since the mid 1990s, only to have a large chunk of science ignore it. When we got a series of natural disasters it came to light again, and now we can see it accelerate quickly as we see the poles melt.

If there's anyone here merely following media hype, you'd hear him or her jabber about birdbrained schemes like hydrogen cars. Give us a little more credit, there CATO.