put ebola in the water supply and let things take their course. That should clear up 70% of the problem fairly quickly. After that there will be large losses as those left over figure out how to keep things going that the other 70% used to do. I figure, that should about brign numbers down to a more manageable level, for a couple hundred years anyway. Then do it again.

I think the counter to this is small businesses. — schopenhauer1

Small businesses are in most cases even more exploitative of labour than big business. They are more likely to engage in off-the-books employment, while ignoring safety or health considerations. They are in general less subject to scrutiny and accountability, and are all the worse for it.

-

Also it's always fun to post right under someone advocating planetary genocide. Not surprising given that's the logical outcome of green fascism.

Small businesses are in most cases even more exploitative of labour than big business. They are more likely to engage in off-the-books employment, while ignoring safety or health considerations. They are in general less subject to scrutiny and accountability, and are all the worse for it. — StreetlightX

I actually would have to agree with you based on what I've seen. But what is your solution to the seeming need to gamble your resources and time and work to create a new venture that makes money? That seems to drive a lot of innovation and such.

Let's put it this way.. There are probably way more Fords and Edisons who don't just invest and tinker for the hell of it, but to make a lot of money, than there are Teslas who are doing it out of pure interest for public good or curiosity.

The solution has already been put into effect: the liberation of women. The birthrates are already falling worldwide, so any proposed solution is probably stupid, arbitrary and totalitarian.

The answer is upon us, pandemic whether natural or created, is the only way a global population without a collective mind can save the world. So, if you died an early death as a result of the pandemic take some solace in knowing your part of the solution.

I actually would have to agree with you based on what I've seen. But what is your solution to the seeming need to gamble your resources and time and work to create a new venture that makes money? That seems to drive a lot of innovation and such.

Let's put it this way.. There are probably way more Fords and Edisons who don't just invest and tinker for the hell of it, but to make a lot of money, than there are Teslas who are doing it out of pure interest for public good or curiosity. — schopenhauer1

This is one of those memes that gets rolled out every now and then in defense of capitalism, but it could not be more wrong. In fact that this is so completely wrong is probably, for me, the major reason we need to get rid of capitalism. Can you even imagine the number of people around the world who have had to give up on their dreams, or who have abandoned projects because they were not considered profitable? The fact that capitalism selects for profit means that massive swathes of planetary potential is simply wasted, swept into the garbage bin of society, because it doesn't meet the artificial and extrinsic standard of profitability - no matter how useful, interesting, or even life improving those things might be.

I was reading the other day about a 'brilliant' team of scientists who have been trying to reverse engineer insulin production, and they have spent years on it, along with incredible amounts of funding. This was pitched as a 'feel good' story, like, 'look at this ambitious people-savers who want to fight the predatory pricing of pharmaceutical companies'. But can you imagine what's really happening? These people have had to waste their talents trying to come up with something we already have, in large quantities, able to be cheaply produced. But because of market imperatives, these people are literally wasting their lives trying to replicate what is already out there. What a waste. All the while people are dying for these stupid profit games. It's insane. And that not even to mention the structure of the market which is driven by utterly unproductive speculation in finance and housing, along with weapons and stupid shit like NFTs.

And then there's the obvious fact that everywhere you look, capitalism breeds sameness. You can see this most obviously in architecture, with more or less pre-fab buildings and suburbs that have become blights on our living spaces. Houses and buildings looks the same and look rubbish because what matters is cost, not actual people. Or else look at the state of cinema, churning out squeals and franchise productions one after the other, with original scripts being nothing but 'risks', no matter how good they may be. The same can be said for our music, our cuisine, our dress, our sports. Capitalism is anti-innovation. In fact this last example points up to how it gets even worse - because of these feedback mechanisms, not only does capitalism's selection for profit kill innovation, it creates environments in which the fostering of innovation is actively discouraged. It kills our dreams, and even our courage to dream. It's hell.

Check out Graeber's essay for more on these themes: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit

Address something I've written, — Isaac

OK,

Fertility rates in developing countries are controlled mainly by age of marriage, length of breastfeeding and mortality (or morbidity) prior to 50. — Isaac

With modern medicine and health care morbidity has fallen throughout the World, even if there are difference between the poorest countries and the rest. Yet things like child morbidity has steadily declined all over the world since the last century. And these other issues you mention are simply minor compared to the society becoming more prosperous. In fact, changes in things like age of marriage seem to happen when societies develop and come more prosperous. Families don't get their daughters married at young age, but put them to school. Things like that.

What has materialism got to do with it? — Isaac

Well, put there the term "capitalism" or anything, but NOTICE this is just what I said to be narrative going off to something else that basically is a distraction. So as I said this is the wrong way to go, this isn't an objection to my response as my basic line is that more prosperous society makes people to have less children and hence we should try to make all people in a society, not just a tiny section, be more prosperous.

This is one of those memes that gets rolled out every now and then in defense of capitalism, but it could not be more wrong. In fact that this is so completely wrong is probably, for me, the major reason we need to get rid of capitalism. Can you even imagine the number of people around the world who have had to give up on their dreams, or who have abandoned projects because they were not considered profitable? The fact that capitalism selects for profit means that massive swathes of planetary potential is simply wasted, swept into the garbage bin of society, because it doesn't meet the artificial and extrinsic standard of profitability - no matter how useful, interesting, or even life improving those things might be. — StreetlightX

Most people live "unremarkable" lives.. By this I don't mean that they aren't doing things they enjoy or striving for some goal but rather that they aren't going to be talked about in the documentaries and books of "men that shaped the modern world". Most people don't have access to the forces of production, but that's because most people don't know how. For example, does the average person know how to get ahold of materials like iron, gold, diamonds, copper, and such, combine them together, and manufacture them into a part (probably used for some bigger item)? No they don't. Rather, manufacturing engineers do. These guys are probably contracted out by other technicians who have an end goal for the product.. Many times, the entrepreneur doesn't even own the factory.. Anyways, there are just webs and webs and networks of interactions that happen that make things come about.

I see much of the problem is that people are so specialized that they have no idea of the forces of production that create their own survival situation.. aka the modern industrialized economy. We are as isolated as can be from our own subsistence.. and like the blind man with the elephant, are perplexed by such a behemoth. So we try to grab at something that we can ground us in. For conservatives, that might just be doing your job and starting a family without much question.. BBQs, video games, sports, drinking/drugs, and screen time.. For liberals it is much the same, but add in concerns of identity politics, concern over ecological issues, and a few other social concerns. For both groups, perhaps investing in something, usually the global stock market is done to increase assets and wealth. None of them (us) have the big picture. We don't know how it is that we exist the way we do. Books by scholars are published... essays written that try to corral all the phenomena into one large manifesto or authoritative synthesis.. And readers think they gain more insight into the perplexing behemoth by simply reading this text.. But they go back to their actual lives consuming and going to work and the daily things mentioned earlier. Meanwhile the Global South knows even less but are affected materially more. I don't know how to solve the problem of being born in an impersonal system that we have little direct contribution in. We just live in it.

We are as isolated as can be from our own subsistence.. — schopenhauer1

But this is simply not true. Literally anyone who works for a wage employs those means every time they go to work. The 'seperation' is a legal and conventional one. It has nothing to do with "remarkableness".

But this is simply not true. Literally anyone who works for a wage employs those means every time they go to work. The 'seperation' is a legal and conventional one. It has nothing to do with "remarkableness". — StreetlightX

If you read the whole thing, I'm getting at the fact that we are so specialized as to not know how it is that we subsist on a whole. Obviously how we survive is the complex billions of interactions that have nothing to do with us directly.

Therefore?

Therefore? — StreetlightX

The impersonal means in which we survive gives us practically no efficacy for change. "It" is so big, we just go back to staying in our lanes as described above (especially about "conservative" and "liberal").

"It" is so big, we just go back to staying in our lanes as described above — schopenhauer1

Eh, this doesn't address anything I said at all. And in any case sounds like what one says when one is comfortable, which billions of people are not.

Eh, this doesn't address anything I said at all. And in any case sounds like what one says when one is comfortable, which billions of people are not. — StreetlightX

Oh right. I thought this was a philosophy forum. Apparently your posts are helping the starving Africans.

these other issues you mention are simply minor compared to the society becoming more prosperous — ssu

From 'Determinants and Consequences of High Fertility' - Robert T. Lazarus, Professor in Population Studies, Department of Sociology, Ohio State University

Age at first union is relatively young in most high fertility societies (less than age 20 on
average). Several years delay would contribute to fertility decline, and it would have other health and socio-economic benefits.

many of the high fertility countries have moderate to high levels of unmet need for family planning—the prevalence typically ranges from one-fifth to one-third of married women.

Income is a relatively weak predictor of fertility decline, net of mortality and education.
Poor economic performance is not in itself an obstacle to fertility decline

Just gainsaying what I said isn't 'addressing' it. There are proximate determinants of reduced birth rates, these are those I listed. They may or may not be correlated with prosperity, but even if they are, it's an historical association, there's absolutely no justification for assuming it's how it must, or ought to, be done, simply because it's how it has been done. We could just as easily say that being a white man is strongly correlated with scientific breakthroughs, I could show you a graph that would correlate even more strongly than your GDP vs Birth Rate one between Race/Gender and scientific advancements. So to get all the best new developments we should make sure our universities are stocked with white men, yes? Or would that be to confuse the way things happened to have been with the way things ought to be?

There are facts of biology. Those criteria need to be met to reduce the birth rate. The fact that those criteria are often (but not always) met where there's an increase in GDP does not in any way mean that an increase in GDP is either the only, nor the best, way to achieve those criteria.

As for...

Well, put there the term "capitalism" or anything — ssu

Well no. Materialism, capitalism and prosperity are three completely different things. One is about ownership of goods, one bout the distribution of the means of production and the other about the affordance of needs. They are not simply interchangeable. Prosperity is possibe without either capitalism or materialism.

I had an epiphany (a Buddhist one): More people is a positive development: sinners have been cleansed of their bad karma and now, with enough merit points, get a shot at enlightenment as humans (the Goldilocks zone for nirvana). Intriguingly, there's been a proportionate amount of extinctions recorded in the animal world.

Overpopulation has a bad rep; I thought I might take the opportunity to inform you that there's a silver lining.

Of course one might ask the reason why women are getting children older. But I guess the reasons for that don't matter.

Prosperity is possibe without either capitalism or materialism. — Isaac

So give an example as we are talking about poor societies and rich societies.

Eh, this doesn't address anything I said at all. And in any case sounds like what one says when one is comfortable, which billions of people are not. — StreetlightX

Perhaps I too quickly judged this as an ad hom on me. If you were commenting on the descriptions of the conservative/liberal ways of thinking in the previous post, my point was to demonstrate that there is an inherit inertia in the current system. We cannot know how the system is run because we don't even know the ultimate structures on which we rely upon. You are forced into a consumer and a worker, but not a systems changer.. That last one isn't even an option.

The point is to change the options available. And again, this is just a brand new point you've brought up that has nothing to do with your previous point and ignores my entire previous post. It's rude.

Also, it is in general, a really silly point. Do you think the revolutionaries who did away with feudalism sat on their hands because they were stupefied by the scale of the issue? No. The objection is ahistorical and frankly isn't one. It can be said of anything and anyone at any scale. That one lacks an imagination is not an objection.

It's rude. — StreetlightX

Get off your high pony dude. I've known you since the last forum, and I'm sure you hate my posts just as much as I hate your style. It does speak to your point because here you are saying you are against the current system (big and small businesses owning stuff.. pretty damn ingrained practice as of now in Western culture) and I am trying to tell you that your "anti" against businesses has an inherent inertia which will make any action against it quite insurmountable. What you want is Russian/French Revolution style change? Probably not, and there's not many options.. The ones that are there are mentioned in the "liberal" version of what I discussed.. Talking points at the peripheries of things.. Nothing with changing systems...especially the very core of what produces what we consume and actively use daily.

Also, it is in general, a really silly point. Do you think the revoltionaries who did away with feudalism sat on their hands because they were stupefied by the scale of the issue? No. The objection is ahistorical and frankly isn't one. — StreetlightX

It is NOT ahistorical.. Feudalism in what country? In England it was gradually replaced by burghers/small business/land owners/farmers wanting more of a say in Parliament. France and Russia are really the examples you are looking for, but even with that.. You think that sort of violent revolution is good or inevitable?

So your point is that we can't change the system because we can't change the system. This is glib but are you really saying anything more than that?

Also, for what it's worth, I don't hate your posts. I just think they focus on all the wrong things; or at least, things I find philosophically uninteresting. There are posts I hate. Yours are generally not among them.

So your point is that we can't change the system because we can't change the system. This is glib but are you really saying anything more than that? — StreetlightX

True it is glib, and it basically does amount to that, but it's more about exploring this idea. More specifically, I am interested in all the intricacies of how technology is brought together and how the immensity of this alone crushes any attempts to undo it without devastating consequences to comfort and well-being. Let's take your computer. It has tremendous amounts of networks.. probably in the millions for what actors, resources, and actions had to take place for you to have that in front of you. How would a "new" system even fathom to unravel these heavily threaded factors of research, services, transportation, and production to a non-business system? How would that even happen?

Let's follow the specifics here.. How did the factory get started? Where did the patents come from? Then ask this for about a million other activities related to the businesses that went into making just one product. How can you change that? Let's say it is changed somehow. What would it change to? A worker's council? What's that look like? So what does insubordination look like? That was gulags and workcamps in many communist societies.

My answer is obviously that there is a no-win. Clearly from past responses, you would know I would say that the only way out is to not force people to play the game in the first place. The game will always be rigged against the individual. And no, I don't think everyone working for a Star Trek like existence is good either. It is still using people for some "cause" well-intentioned or not. The only way you can get that to be ethically "good" in my view, would be if you somehow drugged people into being borg-like and all think the same exact thing.. If that somehow happens.. then I guess that might be ethical since no one literally can think differently. As it is now, any system will be the way it is, and YOU must comply. There is no getting around that.

Also, for what it's worth, I don't hate your posts. I just think they focus on all the wrong things; or at least, things I find philosophically uninteresting. There are posts I hate. Yours are generally not among them. — StreetlightX

Well, thank you. For you that is very charitable, so I will take it.

How would a "new" system even fathom to unravel these heavily threaded factors of research, services, transportation, and production to a non-business system? — schopenhauer1

Why would anyone want to 'unravel' these things? What is being called for is a change in the regime of property. It's an issue of control, not technical ... whatever it is you are imagining.

As for this 'no-win' business - I have no tuck with it. I have nothing to say about that because it's useless and dumb and not philosophy and the kind of thing reserved for comfortable people who like to think they are radical contrarians while changing absolutely nothing. For what it's worth I am absolutely pro anti-natalist. I hope they all die of their own accord and we never have to hear from them again. Their consistency of theory and action is the best possible favour they could lend to the rest of the world. I support antinatalists wholeheartedly. May they all drop dead and never leave a trace.

Why would anyone want to 'unravel' these things? What is being called for is a change in the regime of property. It's an issue of control, not technical ... whatever it is you are imagining.

As for this 'no-win' business - I have no tuck with it. I have nothing to say about that because it's useless and dumb and not philosophy. — StreetlightX

You contradicted yourself.. "A change of regime of property" would unravel these things.

As for this 'no-win' business - I have no tuck with it. I have nothing to say about that because it's useless and dumb and not philosophy. — StreetlightX

Not philosophical? Hardly. It is simply observation of what was and what is. There is a reason the French and the Russian systems had violent revolutions and the British one did not. It is the British system that we are all in today, really.. even China. The march of impenetrable levels of business/bureaucratic interactions that cannot be unknotted.

Also, you did not answer what would happen in your worker's councils (I'm assuming that's your goal?).. How would they handle insubordination by "other" workers? How would it not devolve into (another) dictator of a vanguard?

Overpopulation paradox: Increase in numbers indicate there's more food to go around. However, the demographic (poor folks) that's registering highest birth rates is also the one that experiences starvation more often and with greater severity.

Overpopulation (the poor have more children): More food
Starvation (frequency & severity is greatest among the poor): Less food

"A change of regime of property" would unravel these things. — schopenhauer1

Why do you think so? The removal of a capitalist class who owns the means of production does not entail any technical change in how those means function - apart of course, from what we now decide to do with them.

And I'm not answering questions about what ought to happen. That's already far afield. Again, if you think this is the best of possible worlds, then so be it. You've reached your conclusion. I don't care enough about what you say to change your mind.

Why do you think so? The removal of a capitalist class who owns the means of production does not entail any technical change in how those means function - apart of course, from what we now decide to do with them. — StreetlightX

The CEO of a small tech company gets paid $2 million. The head developer gets paid $300,000. A mid-level developer and R&D personnel $150,000. The tech support gets paid $60-75,000. The sales people range from $70-$200,000. The people in the manufacturing get a range from $45-$85,000 depending on their position. Customer service and related personnel get $50,000. They all get increases every year 5% for inflation. Everyone likes their little hierarchy. In larger companies, the numbers may be more and more room for ladder-climbing. Third world nations that are chiefly exporting and living subsistence want this little hierarchy too. You are trying to take that away with themes of "no property". Rather, the CEO gambled, and put in that effort 30 years ago and deserves the reward of profit-maker and figure head. The developers and mid level people are getting paid enough to live comfortably and do those things mentioned earlier (BBQs, TVs, etc.).. The third world see this and want it exported to their country. So these people would ask you what is your problem? Is it the big guys? The international corporations? The ones that pay the "real bucks" and you can climb much further up the hierarchy? Why would they hate "that"? Hey, you might even get healthcare too! (Bestowed from government or business/fiefdom).

The workers think, "Why should we own the capital.. The owner put that initial gamble and work into the company. It is his profits. He is gracious enough to pay me enough to live. I get to go on vacation soon!".

The only response you will give is some cliched notion of starving Africans who are not a part of this system right? But that is itself a different problem than taking away property. You are confusing development issues and issues surrounding fundamentals of property... But I'll be charitable and assume you are NOT going down that cliched road of third world vs. first world in this justification for no property (in the first world). So if that's the case, what is the need for taking away the capital from those who gambled to create the growth of business (and bestowment of jobs) created from that initial capital? So we will go back to global, mega corporations right? Because they are employing low wage workers in third world companies? So we go back to that... So really it is back to large corporations.. and so you fall into simply "liberal" who wants get rid of multnational corporations that exploit third world countries. That is right in line with "liberal" versions of standard capitalism. Get in line.

Amazing. You extrapolated a whole line of reasoning from literally nothing I said and then, having made up a fantasy, said that this fantasy - that you made up from scratch - is not fit for reality and so I must be a standard liberal. Very cool. Why bother chatting with me when you can just chat with yourself and then argue against yourself?

Amazing. You extrapolated a whole line of reasoning from literally nothing I said and then, having made up a fantasy, said that this fantasy - that you made up from scratch - is not fit for reality and so I must be a standard liberal. Very cool. Why bother chatting with me when you can just chat with yourself and then argue against yourself? — StreetlightX

Ok, so what is your position? All I know is that you believe in taking away capital as it currently is, and that you don't want to discuss what your vision is for what to do after this.

Well, in a thread on "overpopulation", the point is simply to focus the problem on the right issues, rather than the wrong ones. In any case, you don't believe in solutions at all. That there are populations at all seems to be an issue for you. This is as dumb as the ecofascists, albeit more benign and thankfully self-eliminating.