Sure, education of all (if it could be afforded and effected) may cause a downward trend in reproduction. But will the magnitude of such a trend reduce the population to sustainable levels quickly enough, to ameliorate the disastrous environmental impacts of our current trajectory?

Honestly, I'm much more optimistic in this approach than trying to get the filthy rich to tone down their lifestyle.

We currently overproduce food by an insane margin. — StreetlightX

Maybe you're right about that, but what can we actually do to eliminate the seemingly inevitable human error and indifference involved in such wastage. And how would we coordinate and cooperate globally such as to be able to redistribute food all around the globe in sufficient quantities to feed everyone without massively ramping up fossil fuel usage?

And how are we going to produce even enough food to feed everyone without continuing the disastrous farming practices that have already brought much of the world's lands to the brink of biotic impoverishment?

It's all very well to say that something could be done "if only...". But if there is to be a practical solution to work towards, even if you could convince everyone to cooperate in working towards it, it would first need to be a plausibly realisable solution, otherwise no one will take it seriously in the first place, and it could never even begin to get off the ground. I think we first need to face up to the real scope and complexity of the problem and leave politics and ideology out of it at least initially.

This is not only, but also, because politics and ideology are always already polarizing, divisive forces, and in regard to this seemingly intractable problem we would need cooperation and coordination first and foremost to have any hope at all of finding and implementing a solution.

"Getting the filthy rich to tone down their lifestyle", and getting them to agree, or forcing them, to redistribution of their wealth would seem to be one very necessary part of any solution.

You have to force them*. Exactly. I have no problem with that.

*Many of them.

You're living in a dream world, typical fairly land philosopher who has no understanding of the scientific, political, economic or practical side to their argument. You don't make streetlightx look reasonable but you come awfully close. Your interpretations are overdramatic, unreasonable and really just argue factually incorrect nonsense.

Please stick to areas of philosophy where just describing your feelings is sufficient and your absurd interpretations can be forgiven... like morality about saving the whales or something.

You don't name names, you don't give figures, you don't show data, if you really can make a better argument then go ahead but please give your sad poetry a rest.

Is population the worse thing for the environment?

I would say plastic is:

There's all this talk about the rich but people need to ask themself would they really want to live in a world where nothing they can ever do will ever be rewarded? That's worse than a Sim Game it's even worse than slavery. Worse than cattle. It would be the effective transformation of humanity into robots.

Of course someone with less than you would want to 'force' it from you. We're reverting back to pure cavemanism. What country are you from? Is a smaller enclave who used to own what you do now entitled to it? Hey as long as we're non biased. And as long as you vote accordingly. Other than that you probably shouldn't let greed and petty inability to be content and grateful devalue any and all future human effort and shoot even the concept of value itself. Might not work out so great.

I'm not sure where this thread is going. Do we want this to be philosophical debate about overpopulation @Janus, or not?

If yes, then perhaps @schopenhauer1 can help you.

If you want a private conversation with @StreetlightX, perhaps you can PM him.

If you are going to attempt critique then at least present a counterargument instead of merely discharging lame insults.

Target something specific I have said or explain just what scientific, economic, political or practical facts you think I "have no understanding of"?

You seem to be suggesting that this thread is "unphilosophical". What exactly is that supposed to mean, and why do you think so? It seems like some sensitive spots are being touched here.

Why do you think there's so much plastic?

Not sure what point you're attempting to put across here; can you explain further?

Environmental issues are something we all should do something about. I feel passionate about that. I just react badly when I perceive that the debate is being confined to a few philosophers who don't care enough to do anything about it.

Plastic — A Blessed Curse

Probably the most humane way to address overpopulation is simply honesty and truth. You start out with enough to survive, then are shown, the only way I can afford to bring in another kid is by hard work and education and will be there to ensure he is raised right. There is a safety net. For emergencies or severe misfortune. It is not a bed to take a nap on willy nilly. You contribute to society, you earn more. The more you do the more you get. Etc.

It should, ideally, and I understand it does not with infallibility, work where you work hard, you get ahead. Sometimes incredibly far. Mansions and boats. You slack, you may fall behind. Again sometimes incredibly so. Homelessness and exposure.

I haven't mentioned any philosophers. What philosophers are you referring to.

Managing global "overpopulation" and reproductive attitudes is in no way more practical, plausibly realisable or less ideological than managing waste, productive and consumerist attitudes.

I don't mean men with PhD's. I mean us casually discussing it.

I know I'm overreacting a bit.

I don't see how any of this addressees the worsening environmental and human problems humanity is currently facing.

Managing global "overpopulation" and reproductive attitudes is in no way more practical, plausibly realisable or less ideological than managing waste, productive and consumerist attitudes. — sucking lollipops

:up:

Imagine if it came to be universally understood that population growth needs to be drastically reigned in if humanity is to survive in great (although much less than current) numbers. Survival in any kind of great number will require civilization; if we were to return to local hunter gatherer and agrarian societies then modern technology, and the global interaction it enables, by and large, could not be sustained.

Even if this were generally accepted, do you think people are capable of caring sufficiently beyond their immediate friends and family and their current lifestyles to make the necessary sacrifices, even if there was a realizable plan in place that could identify just what needed to be done?

If what most plausibly needed to be done turned out to be ethically unacceptable, but the projected outcomes from not doing what is needed were also unacceptable, what then?

Also, "managing global "overpopulation" and reproductive attitudes" is probably going to be seen as more ethically fraught than "managing waste, productive and consumerist attitudes.", but I don't see how the latter will be sufficient or that either would be sufficient without the other.

I understand this is a very touchy subject. It makes me want to "overreact" too. But I also think if we ignore it, it will be at our peril.

Let us not forget that the planet is not in danger in anyway.

I understand this is a very touchy subject. It makes me want to "overreact" too. But I also think if we ignore it, it will be at our peril. — Janus

In all serious, I agree with this sentiment. We must do all we can to avoid as much human (and animal) suffering as possible.

I see the yelling and bitching has already started. Just ignore it.

Getting the filthy rich to tone down their lifestyle", and getting them to agree, or forcing them, to redistribution of their wealth would seem to be one very necessary part of any solution. — Janus

I was following a train of thought on this. Let’s say it’s not ethical, let’s say we address it pragmatically, which is politically. Assume the money and the will is there to address hunger and poverty, to educate people. After addressing the issue of food we would need to address housing, then maybe health and then maybe education. Then comes jobs for the educated, then comes better health, then comes more children surviving childbirth or childhood diseases. That seems to suggest an increase in population. So what then?: we’re back to ethics I think.

As much as I love George, I think he is wrong if he seriously (and not merely for comedic effect) suggests that we cannot fuck the planet, or at least the thin film of organic life on its surface.

Yep, we can do a lot a damage to the biosphere.

Yes, I'm not convinced that it is practicable to bring everyone up to our current lavish level of lifestyle without irretrievably fucking the environment that we cannot but rely on. If that's right, then what are the alternatives?

Yeah, we already have; and just restoring that alone would be a monumental task. I think one of the major problems is that most intellectuals think only in terms of economics and politics, and blithely ignore ecology. We simply cannot escape our reliance on the biosphere and the devastating effects on human life its ongoing impoverishment will have on.

Agreed. Putting it another way: Politicians* and isolated intellectuals can talk and point fingers all they want, but it's all up to scientists and the rest of society to do anything about it.

*Some politicians.

Right, if any effective solution were to be possible, everyone, or at least a good majority of people, would have to see the need and agree on the solution and its implementation.

Maybe global coordination really is an impossible situation to bring about, in which case this thread will probably peter out pretty quickly; since it seems people generally don't wish to contemplate the reality that we are faced with intractable problems.