That Trump is an isolationist is newspeak just as much as saying that all the previous American meddling had as an aim to spread democracy and save oppressed populations.

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

On the contrary, the whole "overpopulation" thing is the easy blame game in terms of capitalism.

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

No shit! And there might be a lot of reasons people in rich countries waste like there's no tomorrow, so obviously capitalism has nothing to do with it :100:

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

Yeah, I'm dead sure that capitalists think like that too. That's probably why capitalists lobby for workers' health, education and increased wages the world over.

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

Good like marrying kids against their will or having them to sustain themselves instead of uniting with their class to get what they deserve? That seems totally reasonable. I was clear where I was referring to, I gave 4-5 examples which you left out of the quote.

people must come to understand and care about the real situation. I'm not proposing actual solutions, but trying to encourage discussion about the scope of the problem, and maybe the kinds of things we might expect any practicable solution to involve. — Janus

What's the real situation and who are the people that must come to understand it? You frame the "overpopulation problem" in terms of sustainability. How did Brett translated it? Where did he refer to when he was addressing excess population? To "the poor countries"; where women might get pregnant against their will. But we know that it is the rich countries that are the less sustainable, don't we? This twisting is the norm in discussions about the "overpopulation problem". So, if it's about sustainability, and if people have to understand what the real situation is, do we agree that it is primarily the rich people and nations that should care about the real situation cause they are the main problem? And if we agree on that do we agree that the problem is better framed as a class issue?

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

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

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

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

How friendly it will be depends on the person that does the description. In other words, it depends on the words, the grammar and the syntax the explainer will choose. When novices are introduced to new ideas, the style of writing should not mess with their effort to understand the ideas. Writing 1000 easy words is easier than writing 500 not so easy words or writing 200 difficult words. It's also easier to read and understand the 1000 easy words. If it has become easier for someone to write in jargon or if someone finds it difficult to use proper grammar, then maybe explaining ideas to novices is not their forte. Maybe they should stick to discussing these ideas with other advanced enthusiasts, at least until they have unlearned the habits of the advanced.

Thank you!

Much better. Although, if that's your best, I would still not let you anywhere near a novice.

Those who are new to philosophy certainly feel enlightened by your response, their ignorance of different philosophical schools and of the basics of philosophy has now vanished.

God only knows how that answer would look like if the title of the thread was Philosophical circlejerk instead of The Educational Philosophy Thread.