11 Jul 06
Originally posted by techsouthSeems like the whole world is standing in line to kiss China's collective arse nonetheless.
Personally, I fear a government so empowered that it can enforce population reduction a lot more than I fear over-population. Along with prosperity, many cultures have reached a point they don't even have the birthrate to sustain their existing populations. And that has happened in spite of their governments wishing for more population growth.
Inexplicably, the countries you refer to support higher populations than ever before. Why is this the case?
11 Jul 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSnyder was not prognosticating about a physical capacity concerning human occupancy; he was making an ultima facie normative claim against practices that lead to and reinforce such a large human population. I fail to see how anything you have said is relevant toward assessing the validity of his normative claim.
[b]Which part of Snyder's "prognosticating" do you find particularly silly?
Comments such as this one, for starters:
"There are now too many human beings"
He asserts this with (presumed) informed authority on the matter, and yet despite four decades of explosive growth following his dire predictions, the sky remains.[/b]
11 Jul 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI guess you are referring to China's one child policy that hopes to curb population growth.
Seems like the whole world is standing in line to kiss China's collective arse nonetheless.
Inexplicably, the countries you refer to support higher populations than ever before. Why is this the case?
Are we to assume that China's recent strong economic growth is a result of their one child policy? I'd be interested to hear you make that case.
11 Jul 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou act like said 'capacity' is some exogenous variable that we control -- and that is a very naive perspective. As I mentioned before, most estimates predict zero point growth is not all that far off. So, actually we are pretty close to the 'capacity' you are talking about. Those studies are based on the observation that annual relative increases in world population have been shrinking for some time now -- and, again, that is largely an endogenous, not exogenous, variable.
We're not even close to capacity, so I'd say 'not at all.'
Regardless, the 'capacity' that you are talking about is really not relevant to Snyder's perspective. Again, he is a making a normative assessment based on consequential argument: he is not trying to say something about an actual physical 'capacity'.
11 Jul 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloOn the other hand, the more members there are of a particular species, the harder they will be to definitively eliminate. I'd be more concerned about the survival of the human race if there were only a couple of million people.
The following is an excerpt from Gary Snyder's Four Changes, written in 1969 when the world's population was somewhere around 3.5 billion:
"I. Population
The Condition
Position: Man is but a part of the fabric of life -- dependent on the whole fabric for his very existence. As the most highly developed tool-using animal, he must re ...[text shortened]... //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_control
Of course, more people does mean more stress on habitat. However, proportionally more stress is exerted by the wealthy, who consume more resources. So the issue may be more one of consumption than sheer number.
11 Jul 06
Originally posted by techsouth(You probably know this but I thought I'd add to the debate.) While this has the goal of reducing population it looks like it will lead to huge social problems in the future. China's culture ranks baby boys as much more preferable to baby girls. A lot of mothers abort their baby or put it up for adoption if it is a girl therefore. The birth rate of guys to gals is weighted greatly in favour of the lads, which is going to lead to an awful lot of fisticuffs and depression amongst the huge male population in the future. Also with only one child, caring for the family becomes a huge burden. The one child may possibly have to care for 2 parents and 4 grandparents.
I guess you are referring to China's one child policy that hopes to curb population growth.
11 Jul 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeIt looks to me like misogyny is the root of the problem, not reproductive continence.
(You probably know this but I thought I'd add to the debate.) While this has the goal of reducing population it looks like it will lead to huge social problems in the future. China's culture ranks baby boys as much more preferable to baby girls. A lot of mothers abort their baby or put it up for adoption if it is a girl therefore. The birth rate of guys ...[text shortened]... comes a huge burden. The one child may possibly have to care for 2 parents and 4 grandparents.
11 Jul 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeTo me it looks like both would be significantly contributing factors. The one-child policy forces only one baby, the underlying misogyny leads to the birth rate in favour of boys. If there was a 'two-child' policy then there wouldn't be a problem with girls being born.
It looks to me like misogyny is the root of the problem, not reproductive continence.
11 Jul 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeI agree both are necessary causes of the current situation. And it's probably arbitrary to single one out as the root.
To me it looks like both would be significantly contributing factors. The one-child policy forces only one baby, the underlying misogyny leads to the birth rate in favour of boys. If there was a 'two-child' policy then there wouldn't be a problem with girls being born.
11 Jul 06
The earth can produce enough food to feed everyone. There is no overpopulation. The real problem is that the available food is not distributed in a fair and just way. The real problem is not the number of people but the lack of income in the developing world. They cannot buy the available food. The developed world however is able to buy the food because they have the income to do so.
The problem is a matter of universal social justice, which cannot not be solved by increasing food production, nor will it be solved by reducing the number of people in the developing countries. It can only be solved by giving the people in the developing world a real chance to earn a decent income so they will be able to buy the food they need.
11 Jul 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeBut the sheer size of the population may be one factor inhibiting fair distribution.
The earth can produce enough food to feed everyone. There is no overpopulation. The real problem is that the available food is not distributed in a fair and just way. The real problem is not the number of people but the lack of income in the developing world. They cannot buy the available food. The developed world however is able to buy the food because they ...[text shortened]... ping world a real chance to earn a decent income so they will be able to buy the food they need.
11 Jul 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeWith six billion people already on the planet, what possible benefit can there be in intentionally adding more?
The earth can produce enough food to feed everyone. There is no overpopulation. The real problem is that the available food is not distributed in a fair and just way. The real problem is not the number of people but the lack of income in the developing world. They cannot buy the available food. The developed world however is able to buy the food because they ...[text shortened]... ping world a real chance to earn a decent income so they will be able to buy the food they need.
11 Jul 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell, if income were distributed more equally, I agree that food distribution would follow. But what is the solution?
The earth can produce enough food to feed everyone. There is no overpopulation. The real problem is that the available food is not distributed in a fair and just way. The real problem is not the number of people but the lack of income in the developing world. They cannot buy the available food. The developed world however is able to buy the food because they ...[text shortened]... ping world a real chance to earn a decent income so they will be able to buy the food they need.
It doesn't seem that we really need to distribute income evenly. We can just order that food be distributed evenly.
11 Jul 06
Originally posted by DelmerWho says that if the World Income will be distributed more just the world population will increase because of that ?
With six billion people already on the planet, what possible benefit can there be in intentionally adding more?
If a country becomes more developed and as a result of that people will become more prosperous and at the same time social justice is increased, meaning the new found wealth will be distributed in a fairer and more just way, you'll notice that the birth rate will go down dramatically.