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. — StreetlightX

Oh c'mon StreetlightX, you can do better than a red herring. Yes, I have strong antinatalist ideas.. If you look between the lines, that whole scenario I gave you wasn't something that I'm saying is thus "good", and should be perpetuated unto a new generation. That indeed is an issue unto itself (as to what we are doing when we procreate). However, I am trying to meet you with the issues you are presenting in terms of a solution through dissolving our current economic system. So are you going to answer directly or obfuscate with red herring retorts that are not answering the questions at hand regarding your economic solutions/beliefs?

I do not have concrete solutions and I do not have final answers. I simply have principles, and I hew to the apparently radical idea that a better world is possible. I have certain ideas regarding power and its limitation and so on, but they are not appropriate for this thread. Malatesta is always a nice go-to:

That’s all very well, some say, and anarchy may be a perfect form of human society, but we don’t want to take a leap in the dark. Tell us therefore in detail how your society will be organised. And there follows a whole series of questions, which are very interesting if we were involved in studying the problems that will impose themselves on the liberated society, but which are useless, or absurd, even ridiculous, if we are expected to provide definitive solutions. What methods will be used to teach children? How will production be organised? Will there still be large cities, or will the population be evenly distributed over the whole surface of the earth? And supposing all the inhabitants of Siberia should want to spend the winter in Nice? And if everyone were to want to eat partridge and drink wine from the Chianti district?

...We are no more prophets than anyone else; and if we claimed to be able to give an official solution to all the problems that will arise in the course of the daily life of a future society, then what we meant by the abolition of government would be curious to say the least. For we would be declaring ourselves the government and would be prescribing, as do the religious legislators, a universal code for present and future generations. It is just as well that not having the stake or prisons with which to impose our bible, mankind would be free to laugh at us and at our pretensions with impunity! ... But the fact that because today, with the evidence we have, we think in a certain way on a given problem does not mean that this is how it must be dealt with in the future. Who can foresee the activities which will grow when mankind is freed from poverty and oppression, when there will no longer be either slaves or masters, and when the struggle between peoples, and the hatred and bitterness that are engendered as a result, will no longer be an essential part of existence? Who can predict the progress in science and in the means of production, of communication and so on?

What is important is that a society should be brought into being in which the exploitation and domination of man by man is not possible; in which everybody has free access to the means of life, of development and of work, and that all can participate, as they wish and know how, in the organisation of social life. In such a society obviously all will be done to best satisfy the needs of everybody within the framework of existing knowledge and conditions; and all will change for the better with the growth of knowledge and the means.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy

Whatever happens will have to be the result of experimentation - a thousand flowers blooming, hundreds of them failing, worked out amongst people with stakes in the society they build together. But it will have to be better than this failing, decomposing system - it's either socialism or barbarism. That's the choice.

I simply have principles, and I hew to the apparently radical idea that a better world is possible. — StreetlightX

Can you elaborate on those principles? From that quote I can see basically that no hierarchies are crucial to your beliefs. What would you say to the people in that small business scenario who are content (enough) with their pay, vacations, and healthcare? To them, the hierarchy sustains. The capitalist class CEO has provided for them.

To them, the hierarchy sustains. The capitalist class CEO has provided for them. — schopenhauer1

Sure, and this is what kings and lords said to their serfs too - and they were largely right. Which is exactly the problem. It is all the more reason that it was a good thing that we got rid of them. Being a hostage is more, not less a reason to demand emancipation. But I think that's enough for this thread.

Prosperity is possibe without either capitalism or materialism. — Isaac

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

I don't think there is one. Not a clear one anyway. That's the whole point. You're simply assuming the way things are is they way they ought to be, that, in order to have a viable solution, I must present it from history, like all the ideas ever have been tried and we only get to pick from among them. I don't hold to that belief, I think it's incoherent. Why now? Why at this point in time have all the ideas been tried?

We can already observe a type of indirect attempt in humans in overdeveloped areas to mediate their own drive to reproduce. There is a growing fixation on the immature - self-focus, consumerism, indulgence in infantile narrative fantasies – in distinction to the traditional rites of passage which increase the individuals civil worth: strength, honour, valiance, citizenship. Game-like fantasies with auto-erotic pay-offs, visual narrative voyeurism and its childlike helplessness, and internet obsessions that concentrate on ingraining the former restrict the mind to its single desires and contain our minds within social spheres that in the near past have been associated with childhood and adolescence. Reproduction is the ultimate contradiction to this state, in it the individual must act almost solely in the immediate interests of another.

Furthermore, observe the increase in morally gestured ways of life and dogmatic viewpoints. They come with a tendency to view the gain of others as of high importance and self-interest as comparatively meager. This too meets with a distinction with what we would call the 'perfect mate' in the natural world. Disease, however brutal and horrible, is a means by which population control in the world can be exerted. That we now deal with increasingly self-engineered strains of this new coronavirus that has grown strong through activities we call our own vices – mass carbon-guzzling travel, fertility-driven activities such as clubs, bars, and events – shows us to such an extent that this performs a function in reducing populations when they are overly extended.

It wouldn't be surprising if in the near future there were a return to the melancholy ways of art and thought, seeing as these too create a sense of nobility and suffering that would reduce our will to expand and indulge in a vice-focused life. I think we are at a turning point where the larger sphere of humanity is uncertain of its chosen path: do we embrace artificiality or aim to strike a more moderate lifestyle? This will be a gesture of a greater natural process where humanity is prompted if it really wishes to survive. Ironically, that too is the focus of much of our recent discourse in philosophy.

You're simply assuming the way things are is they way they ought to be, that, in order to have a viable solution — Isaac

No, but you do have to have something based on realism for the argumentation.

Why now? Why at this point in time have all the ideas been tried? — Isaac

All ideas haven't been tried as usually new ideas come from adapting to a new unique reality. Yet there always is some precedent, some roots in history. Someone likely has had already some similar ideas, which forms then the "new" thinking that isn't familiar to us now.

Back in the old days, maximum generational overlap: Parent, Children.

Now, minimum generational overlap: Grandparent, Parent, Children.

There's just one/two extra generation(s) [the (great) grandparent] in present times and look how big a difference it makes.

Solution (math to the rescue, again): Packing Problems.

Packing problems are a class of optimization problems in mathematics that involve attempting to pack objects together into containers. The goal is to either pack a single container as densely as possible or pack all objects using as few containers as possible. — Wikipedia

Game-like fantasies with auto-erotic pay-offs, visual narrative voyeurism and its childlike helplessness, and internet obsessions that concentrate on ingraining the former restrict the mind to its single desires and contain our minds within social spheres that in the near past have been associated with childhood and adolescence. Reproduction is the ultimate contradiction to this state, in it the individual must act almost solely in the immediate interests of another. — kudos

I'm not so sure if this is the case. Ideally reproduction is something we partake in with no other interest than the well-being of the child.

In reality however, there can be many selfish motivations that lead to the choice to have children.

Some are economical, others seek to satisfy some deeply engrained biological desire, and yet others simply conform to ideas of what is normal.

I have serious doubts how many couples have entirely altruisitic motives when it comes to having children. If that were to be the case, isn't the first question one ought to ask oneself: how can I seek to do what is in the interest of my child's well-being, when I have never met them?

Furthermore, if one is solely preoccupied with the well-being of their child, another question should be: what gives me the right to decide my child should live. Is that truly in their best interest? And how do I know? And what makes me believe I would be the correct person to raise them?

Yet, parents don't seem to ask themselves these questions, or at the very least do not seem to try to answer them rigorously (I doubt anyone could). As such, these questions are often discarded - after all, they may think to themselves, these questions did not seem to dissuade our predecessors and I want to have children.

Does that attest to the characteristics of altruism and maturity of thought that you describe child-rearing as having?

Because to me, it very much seems like people are either ignorant to or dismiss and refuse to answer the difficult questions that one would expect to be answered prior to making such fundamental decisions on behalf of another. Why? Likely because they are not driven by altruism, but by their desires, and it makes them willfully blind.

That to me is no sign of maturity.

You make a valid point. It was improper to present my idea as if it was valid outright that a continual limbo in adolescence was resistant to reproduction. What I really meant was a perspective in which is posited a state of continued 'unreadiness' for the rites and challenges of cultural life. Take the action-film world as an example, where there is a screen that metaphorically separates the action from the viewer. The viewer observes characters enlarged on the screen both formally and literally as they did when they were but a helpless child. In scenes of intense action, the movements of the plot and dialogue act as if to inform them of changes as if they were both a part of the action and yet a completely passive observer; included and yet not quite at the stage where they truly feel themselves to be part of the story. This form is ideal for experiencing empathy, understanding, and sympathy but is not about doing, controlling, and mastering.

I can only say that the film-head is most susceptible to envy and a certain confusion of ego that stands in the way of them reaching a state of mind that would be deemed 'mature' by traditional society. That's just one example, but we could generate others about the medium of the video game, and the internet and reach similar conclusions. Doing it is so easy because these are not only technological extensions of the arm or leg in the McLuhan sense, but of the mind and even – if you would go so far – the desires and the soul. Reliance on this form of experiencing reality naturally conflicts with the development of rational and mature choice and self-discipline in whatever that used to mean to adults of past generations. The world of choice is continually presented as a being outside the capability of the viewer, who is allowed to indulge in ephemerally watching chaos happen, in contrast to our accepted idea of adulthood as a clear-headed, in-control, and stable lifestyle.

Issues that may be important:

1. The population growth is because of increased birth rates.

2. The population growth is because of decreased mortality rates.

3. A combination of 1 & 2.

4. Which demographic/subgroup matters? For instance, if we're worried about food shortages, should we take into account the variation in appetite with sex, age, etc.? If it's pollution we're worried about, do all strata have the same carbon footprint? So on and so forth.

5. Left to the reader as an exercise.

We all know overpopulation is a problem that is only growing, by 2050 we will have to feed 10 billion people. — Schrödinger's cat

I do not know that. I don't believe overpopulation is the fundamental nature of the problem; but that it's a very wrongful and dangerous mode of thought. I believe the fundamental nature of the problem is the mis-application of technology, and that, applying the right technologies we could sustain a large human population indefinitely.

The key technology is magma energy, shown by nasa in 1988 to have truly vast potential; over a thousand times global energy demand just from the US alone. Lavishing this energy to meet all our energy demands carbon free, plus, capture carbon, desalinate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation, and to recycle all waste, over-population would not be a problem. We'd also have to farm fish, and protect the forests while developing wastelands for agriculture and housing - but, the real problem is not too many people. Rather it's that we have not applied the right technologies to sustain human population.

Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C.
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.


Publication:
Presented at the Symposium on Geothermal Energy, New Orleans, La., 10 Jan. 1988
Pub Date: 1987 Bibcode: 1987STIN...8820719D Keywords:
Geothermal Energy Conversion; Geothermal Energy Extraction; Magma; Wells; Energy Technology; Geochemistry; Heat Exchangers; Site Selection; Technology Assessment; Two Phase Flow; Energy Production and Conversion

p.s. quad: quadrillion btu. Global energy demand is approx. 650 quad.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987STIN...8820719D/abstract

I believe the fundamental nature of the problem is the misapplication of technology, and that, applying the right technologies we could sustain a large human population indefinitely.

While what you say may be true, is all we concern ourselves with in life mere sustenance? What about the quality of life and stability of the solution?

On one hand we have a technological solution that is:

1) Quicker to implement at first, but may be so complex that no unlearned individual could well understand its methodology.
2) Will require constant oversight, innovation, and adjustment by specialist and engineers.
3) May fulfill immediate needs but possibly not subtextual needs such as love, belonging, sense of purpose.
4) May compile itself with further issues, such as issues relating to finitude of energy resources and the environment.
5) In a massive population individuals will feel more insignificant and isolated. Crime and exploitation of governing systems is more likely.

Then you have another solution – reduction of the human population – that:

1) Takes longer to implement but is exceedingly simple in concept so that almost anyone could understand it.
2) Requires individual intervention.
3) Could possibly be more difficult to implement, but this is not really measurable until after the fact.

Then the pros of the tech solution:

1) Allows us to go on with our casual lives without much more individual intervention.
2) Larger population probably equals more technological innovation.
3) Do not need to get involved in extensive government reach over individual activities.
3) May be able to colonize other planets, though this is kind of a pipe dream at this point.

Then the pros of the reducing the population solution:

1) No longer any concerns about environment. Will probably repair environmental/geological damage.
2) Less competition for the pleasures of life; a generally easier and simpler life.
3) Less 'group-thinking,' as in the reduction of personal responsibility. Individuals will feel a greater sense of citizenship and belonging.
4) Smaller population probably equals more cultural innovation (art, philosophy, etc).
5) Less need for oversight, except in the sense of keeping the population in a globally decreasing state.

It seems exceedingly easier to imagine more pros and less cons for the depopulation solution, and the pros seem better and cons less aversive, but maybe that's because I already have that solution in mind. Perhaps you could elaborate on how you might lay it out differently.

I think population growth is slowing down and headed toward plateau. All by itself.

I think population growth is slowing down and headed toward plateau. All by itself — frank

:rofl: Yep and there we were, so worried!

Solutions to overpopulation:

We can't execute old people, but we can downsize families, the Chinese way (one child policy). The problem (if) being increased lifespans & high birth rates.

Looks like antinatalism's time has come.

Perhaps skyscrapers are it! Extending ourselves into the up-down dimension should free up surface area on the beloved sphere we call earth.

What about floating cities (on water and/or air)? We would need some kind of reliable flotation device on a large scale. Antigravity? Advantage: the earthquake problem solved. Disadvantage: failure of flotation devices would be catastrophic.

Question: Why do we want children?

Seems like people are oblivious to the fact that this isn't a problem. As Frank states the population will plateau (likely at around 10 or 11 billion after getting up to maybe 14 billion).

The planet can sustain that many people. If not something called 'death' soon deals with the problem. There is absolutely no reason to believe that overpopulation is an issue other than we're likely to have to address what people are going to do with themselves ... that is a slight worry but people awaken eventually

In terms of food and farming there isn't an issue. The same kind of doom and gloom happened in the 70's I believe then suddenly there was enough grain to feed everyone and still is. Although there are still people starving on Earth today the percentage of the population suffering in this manner has dramatically decreased and there is nothing I can see that is going to reverse this trend any time soon.

I believe such talk stems from some psychological condition we go through at a certain age/maturity in our lives. Perhaps all this talk has more to do with personally coming to terms with our own mortality and projecting out into the world at large?

In 1975, Sebastian von Hoerner proposed a formula for population growth which represented hyperbolic growth with an infinite population in 2025. — Wikipedia

The year is 2022. Just 3 more years, and we'll, or our children will, see an actual infinity.

Hyperbolic growth has something to do with positive feedback loops:

1. Population goes up.
2. More intelligent people.
3. The carrying capacity of the land increases.
4. Go to 1.

Isn't this really weird? There's a bloody algorithm? Who the hell is running this simulation we call our world?

Question: Why do we want children?

Why could mean 'for what...' and it can mean 'what is the reason for...' It's like the movements of a mechanism; the parts don't solely have to have a final cause and there is no necessity for reason. Another question you could ask, 'Does it seem rational to realize having children?'

Then there is a natural power that exerts itself on the human body to procreate. From this point of view the question presents itself, 'Is nature good in its own right?' Then there are a whole bunch of other questions about what it means to be an individual with freedoms and liberties. So all in all it has basically every difficult question in one, but possibly every answer in one.

A few things seem clear to me about this:

- There are no organisms on Earth that could sustain unlimited population growth.
- Given human ingenuity, there are lessening limits on human population growth.
- There is currently no gauge between economic growth and population growth. We don't know for sure that capitalism doesn't rely on either population or technological growth for economic survival.
- It is not possible to state population as an unequivocal cause of the enviroinmental problems, global pandemics, and abstract bipolarization of socio-economic life that most individuals call current issues of the day.
- It is pretty easy to see how a coordinated reduction in reliance on population growth and technology in developed nations, in its ideality, would solve the three aforementioned problems.

Is it possible to have a thriving capitalist economy without population and technological growth? Is it possible for human beings to be held in equilibrium in their number and technological capability by nothing but their own collective volition? There is one main difficulty with the 'let it sort itself out' approach: if our socio-economic system is contingent on growth in population and technology then when natural limiting factors arise there will be individuals who are interested in acting against movement in the direction of harmony. If those individuals also had most of the power, then it would mean disproportionately large scale suffering compared to the relative ease of few.

I asked because there's this joke about the purpose of children (bit dark so prepare yourself for some heartache).

The purpose of children:
1. You needed a free dishwasher
2. You needed a retirement plan
The list goes on...and on...much to my dismay I must confess.