I do not disagree with you entirely! I think that your point about many people focusing on their selfish and limited interests undoubtedly deserves attention. As I have said in my replies to Schopenhauer1, we certainly have to work together to address many of our contemporary issues. It would not be possible to do so without a change in one's mindset. No man is an island. — DA671

Work together? What on earth does that mean?

I only wanted to concur with the idea that there are good people in the world who do positive deeds, sometimes without the expectation of any fame or material wealth (which might be why they are not always known). Therefore, I think that hope for a better future continues to persist. I am sorry if my reply seemed to ignore what you had said; I did not intend to do so. Have a delectable day! — DA671

Cornwell1 didn't say 'there are many good people in the world.' You did. You're agreeing with yourself; thus proving my conjecture that human beings are profoundly selfish; and demonstrating the mendacity of your 'work together' platitude.

Holey cow! So we all should bow to the tyranny of science? — Cornwell1

No. You should fuck everything up and become extinct!

Cooperation instead of competition, generally. At least on the micro-level, I do see it a lot where I live. Small business owners coming together to fight for their rights and locals demonstrating together for a pothole near a house isn't uncommon. Of course, more needs to be done.

I was referring to their claim about them looking beyond themselves. From my perspective, my agreement was with the general sentiment of the comment (which, of course, could be interpreted differently) that there is good in the world in spite of the problems we face. I have seen people who do so, and I hope I can learn something from them. People are selfish, but there are also individuals like you who care about others and the ever-pervasive issue of myopic selfishness. I used to think that working together was a platitude, but I do not think so anymore, because it does have the capacity to bring change (such as the farmers' protest in India) and instil joy in the souls of countless people. I express my profuse apologies if anything I said came off as rude/offensive. As I have said elsewhere, I do have a lot to learn, and that starts when the single-minded focus on "I" ends.

No. You should fuck everything up and become extinct! — karl stone

That's exactly what science has almost done!

I express my profuse apologies if anything I said came off as rude/offensive. As I have said elsewhere, I do have a lot to learn, and that starts when the single-minded focus on "I" ends. — DA671

It's not you. It's me. I'm angry and despondent; not without reason, but it's nothing you've done. I'm venting, and when I'm done - no doubt I'll feel suitably ashamed.

Cooperation instead of competition, generally. At least on the micro-level, I do see it a lot where I live. Small business owners coming together to fight for their rights and locals demonstrating together for a pothole near a house isn't uncommon. Of course, more needs to be done. — DA671

I need cooperation at the highest level - to develop and apply magma energy technology, but otherwise favour competition. As an economic ideology, communism has failed everywhere it's been tried, and often resulted in genocide. That said, too much freedom is also often the cause of great suffering. Mixed economies are the reality; but mixed economies responsible to a scientific understanding of reality, would take the sustainability crisis very seriously, and cooperate to develop magma energy.

I was referring to their claim about them looking beyond themselves. I have seen people who do so, and I hope I can learn something from them. People are selfish, but there are also individuals like you who care about others and the ever-pervasive issue of myopic selfishness. I used to think that working together was a platitude, but I do not think so anymore, because it does have the capacity to bring change (such as the farmers' protest in India) and instil joy in the souls of countless people. — DA671

You've perhaps heard the story of Pandora's box - that contained all the evils of the world. When opened, they were released, but in the bottom of the box there remained hope. I'm having trouble finding it. The fact there's a limitless source of clean energy - that could be developed and built quite rapidly, and could provide the energy necessary to secure a prosperous sustainable future for all humankind, doesn't seem hopeful to anyone other than me. I'm trying to understand why; and think that perhaps, beset by all the evils of the world - it's impossible for people to believe there's hope!

That's exactly what science has almost done! — Cornwell1

On page 11 - you wrote:

Despite of all this technology? Because all of this technology. — Cornwell1

I responded:

Not really, because it's the wrong technology applied for the wrong reasons. It's science used as a tool, in pursuit of ideological ends, rather than developing and applying technology for reasons rational to a scientific understanding of reality. — karl stone

I refer you to the answer I gave some time ago.

I refer you to the answer I gave some time ago. — karl stone

Knowing which technology is right or wrong usually comes after the fact.

Knowing which technology is right or wrong usually comes after the fact. — Cornwell1

Fair point given the history of coal, oil and gas production, but NASA researched magma energy from the mid 1970's to late 1980's - and concluded it was a viable source of virtually limitless clean energy. I think the Regan administration must have discontinued it, but then there was President Clinton - and his Vice President, Al Gore - the inconvenient truth guy. How did VP Al Gore not join the dots on the climate crisis and magma energy? Instead - frack for oil and gas with one hand, and tax consumers into poverty with the other? It's obviously wrong, and it won't work to secure the future.

You keep on hammering on magma energy but is it indeed the safe answer to all our energy problems? How do you know the magma gods won't turn against us? In iceland it works, but there live only half a million of people. That's about 20 000 times less than the global population! Magma in Iceland resides under a thin surface. That's not the case for many countries, just like the Sun doesn’t shine everywhere to turn into usable energy.
Isn't the hammering too frolic?

I endorse much of what you have written. Good people do tend to get angry when they see the immense potency of value being wasted away. I think that your frustration with those who do not understand the need (and power) of concerted effort towards the improvement of society is justified. I think the only pertinent thing to keep in mind would be that there are hidden yet dazzling diamonds in the sand.

Yeah, I think that cooperation at the highest level is vital (that is why I had earlier alluded to the fact that micro-level action seems to be more significant right now, which is good, but not perfect). Recent announcements, such as India announcing its goal to achieve net-zero carbon emissions, are appreciable, yet there is scope for improvement. I also agree that mixed economies are probably the best bet since imbalanced approaches do not seem to provide comprehensive solutions. Magma energy looks like an immensely interesting idea! I will surely look into this :)

Sometimes, a mist can obscure our ability to see the light. However, I am optimistic that it exists-and it is getting stronger. I have met others like you who, instead of falling prey to unbridled pessimism, wish to contribute towards making the world a happier place for all via the careful use of technology and investment in green energy. It's particularly heartening to see many young people supporting these ideas, sometimes in defiance of the views of their elders. The change will come as long as we remember the worth of combined effort. Everybody hopes some for growth and preservation, and others for destruction. However, hope remains in all of us, and I believe therein lies the strength of true and realistic hope. Best of luck to you for your future endeavours!

Why do you suppose it's the poor who are excess to rerquirements? Surely it's you, with your two houses, each with a three car garage, jetting off on three foriegn holidays every year - that's more of a problem in terms of sustainability than some homeless guy. It's your lifestyle that's unsustainable, not his! We need to apply the technologies to sustain your lifestyle - starting with magma energy! — karl stone

My dear, I am the poor. It is a real good idea to avoid assuming. As one of the poor, it is obvious to me what the effect of too many humans means. To begin with, nothing is affordable. All assistance programs are overwhelmed and there is no way charity can be enough to meet the needs. Our labor is really cheap because there are more of us than there are jobs. Life at this level can be pretty ugly because we live with desperate people and desperate people do desperate things. Also, the status system is different because coping with abuse and being abusive becomes a way to have status. I am lucky because I have housing, but the people around me do not and they become like feral cats. And let me tell you, I am so glad I live in a country, state, and community that is making a real effort to help homeless people survive. I can just imagine what it is like to live in a poor country and be powerless to feed my children and watching them die, I was too close to that.

There was a time when I had to donate plasma for the money to care for my family and I was under the required 110 pounds, so I wore extra heavy clothing. This means I was risking going into shock. That was a rough period and I forgot how to think middle class and developed black humor where death is funny. Is there anything you would like to know about the poor? Can I make it perfectly clear it was from this position that I realized the problem of overpopulation?.

You've perhaps heard the story of Pandora's box - that contained all the evils of the world. When opened, they were released, but in the bottom of the box there remained hope. I'm having trouble finding it. The fact there's a limitless source of clean energy - that could be developed and built quite rapidly, and could provide the energy necessary to secure a prosperous sustainable future for all humankind, doesn't seem hopeful to anyone other than me. I'm trying to understand why; and think that perhaps, beset by all the evils of the world - it's impossible for people to believe there's hope! — karl stone

Hope for what? Not even if we had unlimited cheap energy would that make life on a finite planet unlimited. That does not mean I do not have hope. I have hope that human beings are capable of understanding reality and like many people in China realize the importance of having one child.

This reasoning is based on reading geology books. We have a pretty good understanding of the world's supply of essential resources, where they are, and when the demand will be greater than the supply.
This has a lot to do with why some areas of the world are more developed than others, and why wars are fought. There are books on technology and how it is changing our lives and China has the best supply of rare earth material, and our car industry is stuck because it can not get enough computer chips that depend on having a supply of rare earth material, and that means a technological setback.

The hope must be based on information and education for living with our reality. The planet can not afford dreams of no limits. And as for who must die so that others can live- who wants to live through what future generations are going to live through? Some may survive and be able to maintain civilization but I don't think this will happen if we do not work with the facts. And we must come together for these few people to have a chance. We will die but if we do things right, they have a chance of living.

You keep on hammering on magma energy but is it indeed the safe answer to all our energy problems? How do you know the magma gods won't turn against us? In iceland it works, but there live only half a million of people. That's about 20 000 times less than the global population! Magma in Iceland resides under a thin surface. That's not the case for many countries, just like the Sun doesn’t shine everywhere to turn into usable energy.
Isn't the hammering too frolic? — Cornwell1

First, we need to make a distinction between the geothermal energy Iceland have developed, and magma energy. They are not the same. Iceland's deepest geothermal well - IDDP, is a hydrothermal well. The Nasa research envisages drawing energy driectly from magma. The estimated size of the US resource alone is '50,000 - to 500,000 quad.' To put that in context, 40 years later, global energy demand is only 650 quad (quadrillion btu.)

Safe? No, nothing is safe. Everything is a risk. 500 people a year die falling out of bed. There are 450 volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire, and 1500 globally, NASA have claimed, can provide the world with an effectively limitless source of heavy duty clean energy. Here is the link:

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

I endorse much of what you have written. Good people do tend to get angry when they see the immense potency of value being wasted away. I think that your frustration with those who do not understand the need (and power) of concerted effort towards the improvement of society is justified. I think the only pertinent thing to keep in mind would be that there are hidden yet dazzling diamonds in the sand.

Yeah, I think that cooperation at the highest level is vital (that is why I had earlier alluded to the fact that micro-level action seems to be more significant right now, which is good, but not perfect). Recent announcements, such as India announcing its goal to achieve net-zero carbon emissions, are appreciable, yet there is scope for improvement. I also agree that mixed economies are probably the best bet since imbalanced approaches do not seem to provide comprehensive solutions. Magma energy looks like an immensely interesting idea! I will surely look into this — DA671

Please do: here's a link:

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

Perhaps you'll have better luck advertising it than I - I'm not a very socialble person. I tend to hammer people with facts, and expect them to change their minds, and get frustrated when they don't. I'm not a salesman, and I don't want to stand in the way of my own ideas.

Sometimes, a mist can obscure our ability to see the light. However, I am optimistic that it exists-and it is getting stronger. I have met others like you who, instead of falling prey to unbridled pessimism, wish to contribute towards making the world a happier place for all via the careful use of technology and investment in green energy. It's particularly heartening to see many young people supporting these ideas, sometimes in defiance of the views of their elders. The change will come as long as we remember the worth of combined effort. Everybody hopes some for growth and preservation, and others for destruction. However, hope remains in all of us, and I believe therein lies the strength of true and realistic hope. Best of luck to you for your future endeavours! — DA671

Thank you, but I must point out the significant difference between my own position and the 'green' movement. I advocate for sustainable capitalism. I do not approve of the left wing 'green commie' agenda. I accept the climate and ecological crisis is a problem, but believe it's one that can be solved in such a way as to provide for a prosperous sustainable future. I'm not a vegan cyclist, envious of wealth. I believe magma energy will allow us (human beings) to raise the living standards of the 3 or 4 billion poor people - to first world standards, sustainably - and that's an enormous economic opportunity for everyone.

Thanks for that link! I'll try to share this with some people I know.

That's totally understandable :) I hope that your vision will materialise into an amazing reality someday.

Be that as it may, I do think that the creation of the positives that innumerable people would love is certainly ethical. — DA671

Not if you are creating collateral damage "strings attached".

If nobody needs to benefit for thr absence of harm to be good, then I don't think that one needs to be deprived for the lack of happiness to be bad, and I don't think that not creating the conditions for any joy is ethical. — DA671

Yes but that is just a plain assertion. I can demonstrably point to the fact that no one is "put out" by not being born. I can demonstrably point to the fact that someone is put out once born, on a Schopenhaurian or discrete/typical view of what suffering/harm means.

So from here we again disagree on whether it is okay to try to bring about joy when that joy is always intendant with various non-trivial, non-escapable, non-temporary, unnecessary harms.

There isn't any good in not creating a person either. You're the one who seems to be ignoring my point because you wish to obstinately stick to an illogical and inexistent "asymmetry". — DA671

I already explained the difference between a frustrated preference and an unethical act, so I won't go over this again. And since this is about the ethics of causing harm, there is an asymmetry as there is no ethical component to not creating joy when there is no one who exists. The not causing harm does not need to have someone exist for it to be followed. There is the difference.

In one scenario, one does form joy and harm. In the other, they don't. Yet, if it's preferable to not create the harms, it's also unethical to prevent all the good, because as I have pointed out multiple times, nobody needs to be deprived for the creation of a benefit (everything isn't about harms and fouls) to be ethical. No positive or act of beneficence isn't desirable. I don't think that the harm nullifies the happiness that also exists.

No, I don't agree with that. If the non-creation of the harms is necessary even though nobody is benefitted from its absence, I simply don't think that there's any valid justification for suggesting that the prevention of all joy and value is anything other than a fundamentally unethical act that willfully looks away from that which does matter. — DA671

Same criticisms as above.

Hope for what? Not even if we had unlimited cheap energy would that make life on a finite planet unlimited. — Athena

That's a false value. The aim is 'sustainable in the foreseeable future' - not unlimited. That said, with the possible exception of helium, I don't see us running out of anything anytime soon. Given abundant clean energy, we can recycle our waste - mince it all up, strip out the metals, oils, glass, chemicals - and re-use them.

That does not mean I do not have hope. I have hope that human beings are capable of understanding reality and like many people in China realize the importance of having one child. — Athena

Demographics is complicated. A one child policy doesn't merely reduce population. It ages the population. Also, in China there was such a preference for male children (goodness knows why) female babies were left to die in the street. Years later, there's many men who can't find a wife. The very idea of population control is repugnant, and opens the door to evil - from forced abortion all the way upto genocide. If one can possibly avoid blaming the existence of people - anyone with a love of wisdom would naturally do so.

This reasoning is based on reading geology books. We have a pretty good understanding of the world's supply of essential resources, where they are, and when the demand will be greater than the supply. — Athena

Generally, literature on mining discusses resources it is economically rational to develop. The limiting factor is the availability of energy. So, as the richer deposits are mined out, deposits get deeper and further apart. Increasing amounts of rock needs to be crushed and heated to extract decreasing amounts of ore. This requires ever greater amounts of energy. With abundant clean energy, deposits that would have not been economical to develop using fossil fuels, can be developed - thus increasing supply for the foreseeable future.

The hope must be based on information and education for living with our reality. The planet can not afford dreams of no limits. And as for who must die so that others can live- who wants to live through what future generations are going to live through? Some may survive and be able to maintain civilization but I don't think this will happen if we do not work with the facts. And we must come together for these few people to have a chance. We will die but if we do things right, they have a chance of living. — Athena

That's what the left wing, anti-capitalist green commie movement have been saying for the past 50 years, and I'm saying that it's not true. Overpopulation is not a problem, and nor is limits to resources. It's an anti-capitalist green commie misrepresentation of the reality; that with limitless clean energy from magma, we can have far greater prosperity, for many more people, and do so sustainably.

The benefits and the gratefulness people feel for life does matter.

The Schopenhauerian view is wrong here. I can also point out that nobody is rejoicing in the void, but there certainly are people who are happy when they exist. Denying this is merely an unjustified assertion. Deeply meaningful lives can also be "demonstrated".

I do disagree with an idea of that attempts to address the problem of harm by removing the possibility of all precious, resilient (I also don't think that all harm is "non-temporary"), potent, and (assuming the non-creation of suffering is an obligation) necessary goods. Such a "solution", in my view, is worse than the malady.

And I already explained why the "difference" isn't as significant as some might think, but moving on. The formation of happiness does have an ethical component, even if one doesn't personally value it sufficiently. Of course, existing beings don't often require incessant intervention (aside from not causing harm) for them to live sufficiently cherished lives, but this doesn't apply to those who don't exist. The creation of happiness does not require one to be deprived of it for it to be preferable and ethical.

Same replies to those criticisms.

That's what the left wing, anti-capitalist green commie movement have been saying for the past 50 years, and I'm saying that it's not true. Overpopulation is not a problem, and nor is limits to resources. It's an anti-capitalist green commie misrepresentation of the reality; that with limitless clean energy from magma, we can have far greater prosperity, for many more people, and do so sustainably. — karl stone

Different points of view are a good thing. I don't think anything would convince me to believe overpopulation is not a very serious problem and you will not be convinced that the apes and other species seriously need their habitats or they become extinct.

Name-calling is divisive and not a good thing.

The universe doesn't need a bestower of value. If it does, you haven't justified it in argument other than, "But good!!". So? Goods not had by anyone, why is that even an ethical matter? It's simply an axiological one whereby a value is not experienced. That value being not experienced hasn't been connected with anything moral. Not causing happiness hurts no one, quite literally. Causing harm, hurts someone, quite literally. I can point to the ethical violation in causing actual harm. You cannot by pointing to the unhad happiness. Yours is likened to an empty set. You can keep railing here, but that's the case.

And about the Schopenharian case, it indeed has a lot of import here; that can be a whole thread unto itself. However, to use a Schopenhauer argument, let's look at the following.. as this is something I think you might bring up anyways:

Case 1: You know a friend would like X. You have the means to get friend X. You decide not to get X for that friend.

You and I might agree that this is misguided/wrong-headed. It is at the least, uncharitable in some way, if not reaching the level of full violation. It is not going the "extra mile" to be nice to a friend (which actually may still not quite be "unethical" in my view, but for argument's sake we can say it is).

Case 2: No friend exists, but you then create a friend from scratch (you are a god!) and that friend now wants a gift. Before you created that friend, there was no person with interests, wants, or feelings of being deprived to "need" or "desire" a gift. You have created the set of problems for which you now must provide the solution.

Those two are very different circumstances/situations/states of affairs.

The universe also doesn't need prevented harms/violations. Once again, I don't think that double standards are justifiable. You can keep asserting that the creation of happiness doesn't matter, but that doesn't hold much water, because there is simply no logical way of suggesting that a prevention of harms that benefits nobody is somehow necessary, yet the creation of happiness isn't. The lack of happiness can certainly be bad for existing beings. Not having happiness helps nobody, quite literally. Causing happiness, however, does. One can definitely point to harms, but it would be extremely myopic to ignore the joy that would have value once it exists. Preventing "violations" cannot come at the cost of the prevention of all that's valuable. Interminable attempts to deny this remain, in my opinion, futile.

Schopenhauer was right about some things, but wrong about others. Anyway:

1. It's ethical to help an existing person and avoid/mitigate unnecessary harms that wouldn't be in the ultimate interest of the person.

2. Preventing harms at the cost of all happiness is irrational. Nobody in the void is in a state of affairs that would somehow be degraded by their creation. Avoiding the existence of needs via the elimination of the possibility of all joy cannot be a defensible position.

They are indeed different. It's good to prevent unnecessary harms for those who exist and don't need incessant intervention, but this isn't the case with nonexistent beings. If it can be good to prevent potential harm (that "they" don't possess an actual interest in avoiding), then it can certainly be good to become the benefactor who contributes towards the formation of great positives.

The universe also doesn't need prevented harms/violations. Once again, I don't think that double standards are justifiable. You can keep asserting that the creation of happiness doesn't matter, but that doesn't hold much water, because there is simply no logical way of suggesting that a prevention of harms that benefits nobody is somehow necessary, yet the creation of happiness isn't. — DA671

So we are going to have to stop the conversation if you can't get passed the distinction. Violation of harm is happening to an actual person. Preventing happiness is happening to no actual person. If you cannot see that difference, than we are pretty much done with this debate. Put your smiley face on it and run.

Not having happiness helps nobody, quite literally. Causing happiness, however, does. — DA671

WHO needs the help?? NOBODY. Again, you gotta get passed this. It is not symmetrical man.

reventing "violations" cannot come at the cost of the prevention of all that's valuable. Interminable attempts to deny this remain, in my opinion, futile. — DA671

I just don't buy that you need to cause harm because happiness exists. You haven't made that case, only asserted that happiness exists and somehow is necessary to cause harm to bring about for others, but you haven't gone deep enough to make a case for it. You've just tried to (unsuccessfully) use my arguments for your case, which isn't working.

2. Preventing harms at the cost of all happiness is irrational. Nobody in the void is in a state of affairs that would somehow be degraded by their creation. Avoiding the existence of needs via the elimination of the possibility of all joy cannot be a defensible position. — DA671

No one exists to need a gift. You haven't overcome this point.

If it can be good to prevent potential harm (that "they" don't possess an actual interest in avoiding), then it can certainly be good to become the benefactor who contributes towards the formation of great positives. — DA671

No, one is certainly NOT a conclusion of the other. It is good to prevent harm. You don't need someone to exist to not cause future harm for a person. You are not causing that state of affairs. You do need someone to exist to "deprive" of good though. You would first have to cause them to come about for them to need happiness and then be deprived of it.

Again, in one case you are causing suffering for someone. In the other, you are preventing happiness to no actual person.

We shall indeed have to stop because you seem to be incapable of looking beyond your biased and limited framework. Your "distinctions" are manifestly arbitrary, even if they make some sense (and I don't think that prevented harm that isn't good for anybody has worth for that person, but I granted that it does for the sake of the discussion), considering that they attempt to ignore one side of the coin of reality. One could also point out that the prevention of violation/harm isn't helping an actual person, but even ignoring that, the pertinent point has always been that the creation of happiness (which would be experienced by an actual person) is ethical, irrespective of nobody experiencing "lack of happiness" (just as the prevention of harm is supposedly preferable even though it does not benefit an actual person). This discussion has become circular, so I don't see much point in this. I will certainly try to smile, and I hope that others can do the same once they renounce their erroneous views.

There's no asymmetry here except in one's imagination, my friend. Once again, the only logically consistent step would be to remember that nobody needs the lack of harms in the void either. If it's still good to prevent damage that wouldn't satisfy anybody, I don't think that there is a need for someone to have a need in order for the creation of joys to be ethical.

You've also merely asserted that preventing harm is all that matters (as far as procreation is concerned). I've only mentioned the flaws in your position which selectively focus on the elimination of an intrinsically undesirable experience (suffering) at the cost of one that people necessarily seek (happiness). I also don't buy that the prevention of "violations" justifies ending the bestowal of all ineffably meaningful experiences. It's no wonder that things appear to not work if one is adamantly refusing to fix the cogs of reason. Nobody "needs" the prevention of harms either, but since that does not stop you from worrying about ensuring that they do not exist, I just do not see any sufficiently good reason to think that a "need" is necessary for the goods to be preferable.

No one exists to need/be made worse off by being created either. I haven't said anything other than making a valid mirror case, though it's clear that you haven't overcome the problems of your worldview.

It is. It is certainly good to prevent harm (which can also increase happiness, which definitely matters). You don't need someone to beg for happiness for the creation of future joys to be a desideratum. Causing that particular state of affairs can be ethical. And no, you don't need someone to be there for the existence of happiness (that, despite the presence of needs, serves as a source of unimaginable value for a person) to be good (assuming it's necessary to prevent harm that no actual person has an interest in). Deprivation doesn't always negate fulfillment.

In one case, one is causing happiness for an actual person. In the other, one is preventing harms for nobody.

Different points of view are a good thing. I don't think anything would convince me to believe overpopulation is not a very serious problem and you will not be convinced that the apes and other species seriously need their habitats or they become extinct. Name-calling is divisive and not a good thing. — Athena

I somehow missed your post. Sorry about that; and about name calling. It was merely shorthand; I was not intending to insult anyone.

I would agree that different points of view are a good thing; yet the assumption that over-population is the root cause of the environmental crisis is ubiquitous, and you adamantly refuse to entertain any counter argument.

The argument was made by Malthus in his 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population. He argued that because population increases geometrically - 2.4.8.16.32 etc, while agricultural land can only be added arithmetically 1.2.3.4.5. etc, population must necessarily outstrip food production and there would be mass starvation. He was wrong. Tractors and fertilizers were invented, and food production far outpaced population growth.

The Limits to Growth (LTG) 1972 report on the exponential economic and population growth with a finite supply of resources, is essentially the same argument - and one that doesn't account for the multiplication of resources by technology. The false assumption persists even today, as the philosophical basis of all policies that lay blame with the end consumer - rather than advocating for supply side responsibility on the part of producers. Why? Because; while the right have engaged in climate change denial, the left have projected all their environmental arguments through the distorting lens of anti-capitalism.

I say again, magma is such a vast source of heavy duty clean energy, it would allow us to meet all our energy needs carbon free, capture carbon and sequester it, deslainate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation - so allowing us to develop wastelands for habitation rather than ripping into forests and depeleting rivers; and we'd have to energy to recycle all our waste. So how is overpopulation 'the' problem - and do you not see the great potential for evil inherent in such a view?

Geothermal energy does seem to have tremendous potential. There are about 100K people employed in the industry now according to Wiki. It's estimated that it would be viable as a primary source if customers were willing to pay a little more for energy. But in these times of massive inflation that's problematic.

It was merely shorthand; I was not intending to insult anyone. — karl stone

Perfect! Yes, it is a shortcut and that is what is wrong with it. What will happen to your thinking if you do not use that shortcut? What will happen to your explanation and the reader's ability to understand what you think is wrong? :wink: There is great hope for you.

I intentionally did not confront what you said but kind of slipped to the side to avoid confrontation. The great age is in danger of becoming extinct because of humans are reducing their territory. This does not happen when there are fewer humans. When there are few humans, nature repairs itself as fast man damages it. But as human populations increase so does the damage and today that means human activity is causing plants and animals to become extinct.

We are consuming forests faster than they can reproduce and in many forest areas the soil is very poor so once the forest is gone, it is gone. I live in timber territory where timber is a large part of the economy. Besides reforestation, we have Christmas tree farms and they are no longer healthy. If these nurtured trees can not thrive, for sure all those saplings we are planting are not going to survive! I am afraid timber is no longer a renewable product. There is not enough rain for them to survive. Fire goes with this problem. Our forests are suffering from drought and fire is destroying them, while the same drought condition means saplings will not survive. Now consider all the wildlife that depends on the forest. We need to stop cutting down our forest yesterday, or at least do this cutting with more care.

That will drive up the cost of timber up and therefore the cost of housing and already we have a serious housing problem and a huge homeless population. This includes disabled and elderly people, as well as parents with children, and this problem just keeps getting worse. We did not have that but now we do.

Any growing thing can reproduce to the point of destroying its environment if nature does have a way of killing it off. That includes humans. This video may help convey the problem of overpopulation.

Geothermal energy does seem to have tremendous potential. There are about 100K people employed in the industry now according to Wiki. It's estimated that it would be viable as a primary source if customers were willing to pay a little more for energy. But in these times of massive inflation that's problematic. — jgill

I love pictures for helping me understand. Geothermal technology is very hopeful but not the answer for everyone.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&q=What+state+uses+geothermal+energy+the+most?&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&vet=1&fir=W4FH0oCPNOGpPM%252CQKYz7W3Gqyu0pM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kTDCEwDDAluDSvbfca3UYIZrsKEiQ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwieuvHVs931AhUQohQKHVN3CJcQ9QF6BAgGEAE&biw=854&bih=540&dpr=1.5#imgrc=W4FH0oCPNOGpPM

Perfect! Yes, it is a shortcut and that is what is wrong with it. What will happen to your thinking if you do not use that shortcut? What will happen to your explanation and the reader's ability to understand what you think is wrong? :wink: There is great hope for you. — Athena

If I do not use the term 'green commie' to describe the environmental movement since the 1960's - I'm unfortunately left with stupidity as an explanation for failure to understand that, the only way to secure a sustainable future is to increase prosperity. It has long been established that poor people tend toward larger families; suggested reasons for this counter intuitive phenomenon range from a lack of women's rights, via lack of access to healthcare, right through to an unconscious desire for security in old age. Consequently, reducing demand is not a viable strategy to secure sustainability - yet continues, the environmentalist mantra: pay more, have less, stop this, tax that. If it is not an attempt to undermine capitalism - then it's an intellectual deficieincy. Have it your way!

The great age is in danger of becoming extinct because of humans are reducing their territory. This does not happen when there are fewer humans. When there are few humans, nature repairs itself as fast man damages it. But as human populations increase so does the damage and today that means human activity is causing plants and animals to become extinct. — Athena

I assume you mean the great ape. Was this typed by a gorilla? Ba-na-na! How do you propose to reduce the number of humans? During the Second World War, for 8 years, the whole economies of nations were turned to the purposes of mass murder, and a mere 200 million people were killed. There are 8 thousand million people on earth. Do you think they'll just sit still and accept their fate?

We are consuming forests faster than they can reproduce and in many forest areas the soil is very poor so once the forest is gone, it is gone. I live in timber territory where timber is a large part of the economy. Besides reforestation, we have Christmas tree farms and they are no longer healthy. If these nurtured trees can not thrive, for sure all those saplings we are planting are not going to survive! I am afraid timber is no longer a renewable product. There is not enough rain for them to survive. Fire goes with this problem. Our forests are suffering from drought and fire is destroying them, while the same drought condition means saplings will not survive. Now consider all the wildlife that depends on the forest. We need to stop cutting down our forest yesterday, or at least do this cutting with more care. — Athena

Do you not understand that limitless clean energy from magma would afford humans a very different relationship to the environment? Or did you just not read my post? TL:DR? Did you get bored? Ba-na-na!

That will drive up the cost of timber up and therefore the cost of housing and already we have a serious housing problem and a huge homeless population. This includes disabled and elderly people, as well as parents with children, and this problem just keeps getting worse. We did not have that but now we do. Any growing thing can reproduce to the point of destroying its environment if nature does have a way of killing it off. That includes humans. This video may help convey the problem of overpopulation. — Athena

I could repost the posts I've already written, but I can only suppose you'd ignore them and waffle on relentlessly. What you are saying has already been said; I've acknowledged your argument by citing Malthus and Limits to Growth. I'm the one with something novel to say - so perhaps we could discuss my argument, rather than ignoring what I'm saying to restate the already stated, and very well understood dogmatic view of the stupid green movement.

I love pictures for helping me understand. Geothermal technology is very hopeful but not the answer for everyone. — Athena

Most geothermal energy today is hydrothermal - tapping into underground bodies of hot water. It is not the same as magma energy. The significant passage is highlighted in bold:


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

Hydrothermal draws on temperatures rarely exceeding 250'C. Magma is 1200'C. Hydrothermal bodies of underground water have a "replacement rate" problem. They cool down as energy is extracted from them, and take time to heat up again. Magma energy does not have this replacement rate problem. Here's a picture to help you understand:

In the century-and-a-half since Edwin L. Drake drilled the first oil well, the history of the oil industry has been a story of vast swings between periods of overproduction, when low prices and profits led oil producers to devise ways to restrict output and raise prices, and periods when oil supplies appeared to be on the brink of exhaustion, stimulating a global search for new supplies. This cycle may now be approaching an end. It appears that world oil supplies may truly be reaching their natural limits. With proven world oil reserves anticipated to last less than forty years, the age of oil that began near Titusville may be coming to an end. In the years to come, the search for new sources of oil will be transformed into a quest for entirely new sources of energy.
https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/topic_display.cfm?tcid=96#:~:text=During%20the%20early%20twentieth%20century,to%20run%20out%20of%20oil.&text=Up%20until%20the%201910s%2C%20the,of%20the%20world's%20oil%20supply. — Digital History

Right now the world is on the brink of war. Russia controls Much of Europe's supply of oil. Oil is essential to war, so if Russia stops sending Ukraine and other counties oil, they can not defend themselves. The US will have to supply their oil and if you think gasoline cost a lot now, just wait until we have to send our oil to Europe for another war. Wars consume huge amounts of oil very quickly. Given the finite supply of oil we may not be arguing if we need another source of energy, however, that Magna energy you believe will save our asses will not fuel our cars, at least not if we don't have an energy grid for electric cars, and I don't think electric tanks are going to win wars.

Another small fact, oil is sold in dollars and countries around the world hold dollars to pay for that oil and have tied their economies to the value of the dollar. That is a huge economic advantage for us. The value of the dollar is backed by oil. what do you think will happen to the value of the dollar when our supply is exhausted.