Maybe global coordination really is an impossible situation to bring about, — Janus

In this case it is rational to be optimistic.

in which case this thread will probably peter out pretty quickly; since people generally don't wish to contemplate intractable problems. — Janus

I wouldn't bet on that. :joke:

I agree it is rational to be optimistic, "Prepare for the worst and hope for the best". (Source unknown).

I wouldn't bet on that. :joke: — Wheatley

Well, of course I hope you're right. But hope is one thing, and expectation another.

Well, of course I hope you're right. But hope is one thing, and expectation another. — Janus

In this case, it is rational to be pessimistic.

@Janus Did you expect this thread will last for a while? I'm just curious.

Edit: I don't want this to be all personal. Peace!

In this case, it is rational to be pessimistic. — Wheatley

Optimistic and pessimistic about the same thing at the same time?

Did you expect this thread will last for a while? I'm just curious. — Wheatley

I don't confidently expect anything. I think it is a topic worthy of discussion, if only for the sake of honesty, but I won't be surprised if others, for whatever reasons, think otherwise. I'm happy to wait and see. :smile:

Edit: I don't want this to be all personal. Peace! — Wheatley

Don't worry, I'm well past taking anything on here personally! Take it easy.

The reverse can be argued: Imagine if it came to be universally understood that the C A P I T A L I S T mode of production (and the cultural attitudes it gives rise to) is digging our graves as we speak. What you say is that the real problem is overpopulation cause it is utopian to think that we can address the real real problem, which is capitalism. But that doesn't work cause it's just masks the real problem and as I pointed out, addressing overpopulation globally is no less tricky than addressing capitalism itself. In fact, you can't decrease the population or it's rate of growth without significantly affecting capitalism itself. Capitalists relations (and thus capitalist profit) rest on the existence of a reserve army of unemployed workers. That's the capitalist's main argument to keep payments low, that's why capitalists moved their production plants to places where there is "overpopulation".

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? — Janus

No, I don't believe that, cause the capitalist ideology wants everyone to care just for their immediate needs, however stupid these are. In any case though, it's still easier for people to regulate their attitudes towards production and consumption than to regulate their reproductive attitudes. I too believe there's an overpopulation problem, but it's not the one you espouse. There's an overpopulation problem simply because most parents are shitty parents and they should have not procreated in the first place. For example, lots or romani people are like that. Lots of christians, muslims etc as well, regardless of their colour. Many libertine fools and nationalists too. That's the global overpopulation problem I recognise and that can only be solved by making people less dumb and selfish, that is to say, by addressing the pervasive capitalist ideology and practice. Any organised and state sponsored attempt to keep these people from procreating, can only look like fascism and if we're talking globally, it can only end in global bloodbath.

I'd love to hear what the brightest minds have to say about our greatest problems and the one greatest problem that is behind them all; overpopulation.

I to am concerned about the problems of mankind. But from a slightly different angle than the usual. My concern is how humanity will secure its long term future. For many thousands of years there has been the rise and fall of civilisations. Each time the survivors have to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and start all over again. Apart from it all being an incredible waste of time (and suffering) before the next great natural cataclysm (such as meteor strike, or a great flood). Each time it risks the possibility of humanity becoming extinct.

Surely it is about time we grew up and looked to secure our long term future and this will inevitably require managing the population, the ecosystem and human relations. We really do need to get on with it now as we are over the hill in terms of our growth curve (the equivalent of the bacterial growth curve). We are risking the pollution of the planet, the destruction of the ecosystem, or the extinction of humanity.

This will require the populous to throw out the incompetent leaders, learn to cooperate with other countries and focus on sustainability, rather than personal greed and power games.

Fingers crossed.

I agree with you that the problem is capitalism as it has been practiced. It is the growth of capitalism, and the globalism it enables; which in turn are enabled by the (arguably rapidly diminishing) abundant cheap energy (fossil fuels) and other resources that have allowed overpopulation to come about in the first place.

Any organised and state sponsored attempt to keep these people from procreating, can only look like fascism and if we're talking globally, it can only end in global bloodbath. — sucking lollipops

I also agree with this and would never advocate any enforced "top-down" solution. If there is to be a solution, some real positive change, it seems to me it must come from the bottom up; which means that people must come to understand and care about the real situation. I'm not proposing actual solutions, but trying to encourage discussion about the scope of the problem, and maybe the kinds of things we might expect any practicable solution to involve.

it must come from the bottom up; which means that people must come to understand and care about the real situation — Janus

So basically we're f'd :lol:

I mean. Why did you become a philosopher. Because the majority thoughtstream "did it" for you? Eh. Have faith. Use your talents and intellect to get in a decent position. Probably your best bet

you can't decrease the population or it's rate of growth without significantly affecting capitalism itself. Capitalists relations (and thus capitalist profit) rest on the existence of a reserve army of unemployed workers. — sucking lollipops

I don’t know if I’d agree with that, nor do I think that Capitalism rests on the existence of a reserve army of unemployed. The whole Capitalism thing seems like an easy blame game in terms of over population.

There might be a lot of reasons in poorer countries for people having children or having what might be regarded as too many and adding to problems. Women might get pregnant against their will, adults might have children to help with what’s needed to survive. There was a time when men preferred to have boys because they were of more use to them in terms of working the land or whatever else was needed. So there may be all sorts of reasons for having children that we can’t comprehend.

I don’t think Capitalism is behind that. The so called reserve army of unemployed would consist of a lot of people with no skills at all, people who can’t even read and write. The profits you might be referring to come from a cheap labour force. In fact a population of healthy, educated people is the real benefit to Capitalists.

There's an overpopulation problem simply because most parents are shitty parents and they should have not procreated in the first place. — sucking lollipops

That’s not very reasonable either. You have to be clear about who you’re referring to. Most parents are good at what they do under many different and trying conditions.

If there is to be a solution, some real positive change, it seems to me it must come from the bottom up; — Janus

Yes, because they don’t want to be in the situation they’re in and they want their children to have a chance. That’s one thing you can assume Capitalism doesn’t want to take part in, they’d prefer the government to take that on. But that means it’s really coming from top down, only governments can address these issues, only they have the resources.

I suspect if the poor across the world were given real access to housing, health, education and work then the population levels might decline, but certainly not increase. But then there has to be work available so therefore Capitalism has to be a partner.

Not much of this has anything to do with over population.

The abuses of population control show what can happen when women’s health is second to other, more powerful, agendas. China’s one-child policy, while somewhat relaxed, still strictly regulates and restricts fertility, particularly in cities.

That has nothing to do with womens’ health, it simply reduces child birth numbers.

In some states in India, two-child norms keep people with more than two kids from sitting on local governing boards or from receiving government benefits.

That is obviously about controlling the birth rate. Though not getting on local governing boards isn’t going to affect many. “Some states” doesn’t tell me much.

Romani women in Central Europe, and women living with HIV in parts of Africa and Latin America, undergo forced and coerced sterilizations.

That’s about health, not population.

A 2014 audit of California women’s prisons found that tubal ligations were performed for the purposes of sterilization, sometimes without the consent of the inmate. — StreetlightX

Again nothing to do with population numbers.

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. — Outlander

It’s not very clear who you’re talking about here. Population numbers seem to be most dire in countries where people struggle to get through the day. There is no safety net, there’s very few prospects and very few choices.

This has to do with responses to when problems are framed in terms of "overpopulation" and the barbarism that follows along with it.

But they’re not framed in terms of overpopulation, you just chose to do it that way.

Yes, because all are examples of population control measures, weather you choose to "frame" it that way or not. If you want to choose to "frame" sterilization as spring cleaning or whathaveyou, be my guest.

Stopping the spread of HIV is about health. You can lump it in with population control if you want but that’s stretching it.

You had said that the population control measures in China were putting womens’ health second to population control, but I don’t see how having only one child is a threat to womens’ health.

Stopping the spread of HIV is about health. You can lump it in with population control if you want but that’s stretching it. — Brett

That's not what he's talking about by sterilization. :rofl:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#:~:text=Compulsory%20sterilization%2C%20also%20known%20as,in%20the%20early%2020th%20century.

And not only is 'overpopulation' a totally bogus problem, — StreetlightX

This is the problem. Just what do we mean when we talk about the overpopulation problem?

You had said that the population control measures in China were putting womens’ health second to population control, but I don’t see how having only one child is a threat to womens’ health. — Brett

Then you really ought to educate yourself. Seriously, google it, it won't take you a moment, and you'll have learned something from doing it.

.

That's not what he's talking about by sterilization. :rofl: — Wheatley

Yes, your right.

Edit: but it is about limiting the spread of HIV. The effects on population are not the intention.

You made the statement about health, you come up with the evidence of having one child being a threat to womens’ health.

Nah, this stuff is elementary. I'm not going over well known points with you.

You want me to look for evidence to prove myself wrong. Really.

You said 'I don’t see how having only one child is a threat to womens’ health.' Your ignorance is not my problem.

As opposed to having two or three.

Yeah, if you can't even be bothered to type a phrase in google we're done, thanks.

Yeah, if you can't even be bothered to type a phrase in google — StreetlightX

Nor you, even to prove yourself right.

Edit: but it is about limiting the spread of HIV. The effects on population are not the intention. — Brett

Forced sterilization is used for population control. Look up eugenics.

I did look it up. You do have a point about the health problems cause by the necessity of having an abortion because of the one child policy.

You might want to move this to the educational thread because its off topic. :cool:

Forced sterilization is used for population control. — Wheatley

None of those examples are for the sake of population control.