How To Make Earth's Population Sustainable?

[PunkMaister]

@AuroraGlacialis: Cooperativism is an idea that comes from Socialism but the reason it has been a success it is because it has been set with a capitalist end goal of that group of people making some money. Cooperatives for collectives never worked as well at all. And no Actual democracy is nothing but mob rule I rather be ruled by the law than by a mob and it's whim of the moment.

Other than that and given that we seem to agree on education and voluntary action as opposed to imposing a vision to solve the overpopulation problem in the world particularly in Africa, I'd say hat we are almost on the level here.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

@AuroraGlacialis: Cooperativism is an idea that comes from Socialism but the reason it has been a success it is because it has been set with a capitalist end goal of that group of people making some money.

Yes, that is the reason it is a success in an environment that is goverened by a money based economy. It would not work any other way in that context. The main goal of the people in a cooperative however is not to make as much money as they can and buy a yacht, but to make enough money to live a good life. The goal is not to buy more and more stocks until someone owns the company and can dictate what will happen. And that is the socialist concept behind it - it does not matter so much if money is still involved (I personally believe it is not a general necissity in the long run, but that is futuristic talk), but the underlying principles are social and that is what counts.

And no Actual democracy is nothing but mob rule I rather be ruled by the law than by a mob and it's whim of the moment.

Well - democracy has its problems yes. But saying that it is bad because 51 percent can dictate 49% and then impose a system that lets 10% or 1% dictate the remaining population is not much better, is it? Obviously law, constututional rights and all that are the foundation of all "good" systems of government, but I think the more people have to agree on a decision the more just the system is. Of course if every decision would require a 2/3 or 3/4 or even a 90% vote, we'd never get anywhere...
A big problem with democracy obviouls is, that each democratic decision would have to be taken by a well educated person. Ideally, all people in a state would be well educated and interested in the decision enough to inform themselves about it. Sadly many people could not care less, are not well educated and mostly are influenced by propagandist media. That way, a democracy cannot really work well.

Other than that [...] I'd say hat we are almost on the level here.

Phew - thanks. At least not another heavy debate like I am having in AF now.

[auroraglacialis]

I agree with Spock, also in that I do not have the energy to make long posts on this.
Just a few remarks:
* Before you talk about communism or socialism, you should find out what that really means. The basics of the theory. Not the so-called socialist nations that never really have been true communist or socialist states at all! Also, socialism does not have to mean that everything is owned by the state, but that everything, all resources and production is there to serve all people. The ways to achieve this are manyfold.
* The liebig limit. It should suffice to say two things - one is, we do not want to hit that limit. Yes, population will control itself to its limits, but no it wont be pretty. What makes it worse is, that we are facing actually a decline of that limit rather than hitting it from below, we will find ourselves suddenly above it, worsening the effects. We have two choices - voluntary reduction (my preferred method is also socialism and education, but I would not oppose a two-child policy to keep at least ZPG); Or involuntary reduction by random means. Now whcih of these could be more "humane" - hmmmm
* increasing the planets capacity. It is possible in some ways. Especially with enough energy. Desalinated water, Skyscraper farming and using modern farming technologies in some additional areas can increase output. The problem is, that more production never solved the matter of overpopulation. Each time humans devised better food production, population increased (Liebigs law) until all that benefit went to hell. And many of the modern aspects of increasing output are either harming the planet and ourselves or are not sustaineable in the long run (making the problem of living above the Liebig limit even worse)
* Eating less meat - same as before. temporary solution only. Eventually we would, like in "Avatar", all eat plant derived protein slurry and be able to sustain twice as much population but still be on the brink.

For those in this thread who think, that growth is not a problem and can be handled, maybe even by colonizing space, please invest half an hour or so into education and listen to a lecture from a mathematics professor at the University of Boulder who can explain the dynamics of growth. It is not a boring math lecture, I promise, it is very well done and obviously focuses mainly on the topic of this thread and the predicament on what solutions we could choose: YouTube - The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8) (part 1 of 8)


Other than that all I can say is :


and:

(translation: No, No, this is not communism; referring to the three self imposed communist leaders despite the fact that the mere concept of communism does exclude such a permanent position)

Oh and if you can understand German: this is a great one-page comic on the neverending discussion on communism.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I agree with Spock, also in that I do not have the energy to make long posts on this.
Just a few remarks:
* Before you talk about communism or socialism, you should find out what that really means. The basics of the theory. Not the so-called socialist nations that never really have been true communist or socialist states at all! Also, socialism does not have to mean that everything is owned by the state, but that everything, all resources and production is there to serve all people. The ways to achieve this are manyfold.
* The liebig limit. It should suffice to say two things - one is, we do not want to hit that limit. Yes, population will control itself to its limits, but no it wont be pretty. What makes it worse is, that we are facing actually a decline of that limit rather than hitting it from below, we will find ourselves suddenly above it, worsening the effects. We have two choices - voluntary reduction (my preferred method is also socialism and education, but I would not oppose a two-child policy to keep at least ZPG); Or involuntary reduction by random means. Now whcih of these could be more "humane" - hmmmm
* increasing the planets capacity. It is possible in some ways. Especially with enough energy. Desalinated water, Skyscraper farming and using modern farming technologies in some additional areas can increase output. The problem is, that more production never solved the matter of overpopulation. Each time humans devised better food production, population increased (Liebigs law) until all that benefit went to hell. And many of the modern aspects of increasing output are either harming the planet and ourselves or are not sustaineable in the long run (making the problem of living above the Liebig limit even worse)
* Eating less meat - same as before. temporary solution only. Eventually we would, like in "Avatar", all eat plant derived protein slurry and be able to sustain twice as much population but still be on the brink.

For those in this thread who think, that growth is not a problem and can be handled, maybe even by colonizing space, please invest half an hour or so into education and listen to a lecture from a mathematics professor at the University of Boulder who can explain the dynamics of growth. It is not a boring math lecture, I promise, it is very well done and obviously focuses mainly on the topic of this thread and the predicament on what solutions we could choose: YouTube - The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8) (part 1 of 8)


Other than that all I can say is :


and:

(translation: No, No, this is not communism; referring to the three self imposed communist leaders despite the fact that the mere concept of communism does exclude such a permanent position)

Oh and if you can understand German: this is a great one-page comic on the neverending discussion on communism.

1. No one here is saying that population growth is not a problem, but there a lot of misconceptions about this too. For example when Scientists said that we are above the carrying capacity what they really meant to say is that if every human being in the planet where to live as the people in the U.S and the developed world does you would need not one or 2 but 3 Earth like planets, hence the carrying capacity argument. Hope that clears the whole thing up.

2. I've always argued that education is the best way to solve the overpopulation problem that now afflicts the third world particularly Africa.

3. No matter how you want to paint it, Socialism and Communism are by far and wide failed social experiments. Maybe instead of trying to rehash them they should try to take what has worked from such models such as Cooperatives for example. and dump all from that system which has not worked and never will.

I'm going to finish by saying that responsible resource management and population management by education and voluntary means should not only be implemented in Earth but wherever we go next in the Cosmos. After all the same principles would apply on any off-world Solar system colonies or interstellar colonies.

[Woodsprite]

If I made a ton of money every year and had the chance to buy a yacht, I'd buy a yacht. Am I evil?

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

If I made a ton of money every year and had the chance to buy a yacht, I'd buy a yacht. Am I evil?

Depends on how you acquired it, and what you did with your new-found wealth in total.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

Depends on how you acquired it, and what you did with your new-found wealth in total.

He obviously meant a rightfully acquired fortune. Say he made a new invention and that invention becomes so popular he becomes rich as a result and he buys a Yacht does that make him evil? Hell no and let me guess in your collectivist mind you think that if he does not give nearly all of his rightfully acquired fortune to those that have not made as much or not at all which is where it goes for the most part to lazy bums then that makes him evil, which a load of crap.

[vvx]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

He obviously meant a rightfully acquired fortune. Say he made a new invention and that invention becomes so popular he becomes rich as a result and he buys a Yacht does that make him evil? Hell no and let me guess in your collectivist mind you think that if he does not give nearly all of his rightfully acquired fortune to those that have not made as much or not at all which is where it goes for the most part to lazy bums then that makes him evil, which a load of crap.

I'd buy the yacht too. In fact, I'm pretty well off compared to the average and do spend my gains, so I have bought the yacht (at a much lower level.) That is to say I spend money on things I could do without.

I also recognize the economic system is not an equitable or fair system at all. Consider Bill Gates. I love the guy, he's the perfect example. He was for a while the richest man in the world. I don't remember who's the richest anymore, but Bill is still insanely rich.

What if he was born 5 years later? You see, what was happening in the early 80's really wasn't about any individual person but about the technology. Once we obtain so much technology the moment presents itself and we jump forward. It doesn't matter who owns the technology or who is selling the technology. That is to say whoever owns and sells that technology is probably going to greatly profit, but it's not that they were exceptionally smart or deserving of it. They just happened to have the right stuff at the right time.

So what if Bill Gates was born 5 years later? Someone else would have created Microsoft. The monopoly-like entity would still have existed, but under the power of someone else, someone else who would have been the rich guy. Bill Gates no doubt would still be successful, but the difference between a good 6 figure salary and richest man in the world is great.

And that's the system. Hard work and applying your skills are important to succeed. You can however work very hard and apply your skills and be a genius who never amounts to anything because your particular skills were wrong for the era. Or you didn't meet the guy who wants to buy them, never able to make that connection. Or the job you should have had went to the rich golf club friend's son. There's so much out of your hands that what you actually can control is minuscule. The truth is, it's not a matter of not working hard enough or not trying hard enough when we're talking about "How to become one of the richest men in the world." It's about the luck. Be born to the right family, that's a huge benefit. Start wealthy, that helps. And be lucky.

But do I view the individuals who win the "unofficial" lotto as weak for embracing the advantages life has given them? No, not at all. I would do the same. I recognize the system isn't fair. I'd like a fair system. But given the system we have, I'll take advantage of it when I can just like anyone else.

[auroraglacialis]

Well - I think the key note is probably how you define "rightfully aquired". That can stretch very far. I personally oppose people who happen to have money (maybe by inheritance or even by their own work) to make more money just because of this. Basically without further work. They are lazy bums earning money. If you make money by trading goods that have been produced at incredibly low wages in some developing country - is that still rightful? I would rather think not so much. What about having an invention and selling it to a company that does not use it? not good. But others may see it differently, so the definition of rightful is wide.
I personally favour any model in which work is rewarded, but in a moderate way. In a way that somehow relates to the work done. I see no reason why a banker or a manager should earn enough to buy a yacht while a pilot or nurse barely makes enough to pay the bills. Both do work and both do work hard. Also I think people should be social, that means if someone cannot work or does work that is not in context of a job, they should be supported anyways. No person is here without a reason. Even the guy who sits at home all day long and sifts through the internet to write a blog, edit Wikipedia articles, sets up a forum for some community etc. Or the woman who helps their elderly neighbors voluntarily or sets up some community event. We are approaching a time in which not all work that people do can be in the context of a contract. This kind of work is only possible if people get support (money) anyways. One example is, that it used to be the case that one person in a family earned enough to provide for all, who in turn could do such things. Many people contributing to Wikipedia are without work or students. So I think the focus should not always be to reward only people who do work in context of a job with a contract, but to support everyone with the basic needs and add to that a reward for work - and that reward should reflect the amount of work, not some fantasy status of certain jobs.

[auroraglacialis]

@vvx: Yes - I agree. The current economy is basically a big Las Vegas. There is much more luck and sleaze involved than actually work or creativity in gaining money and power. The perfidious thing about the system is, that if you do not follow it, you will get into really bad situations and have no power. So obviously no one would deny taking advantage if one can as long as it does not conflict with personal morale (like I did prefer taking a job in ecology rather than economy and lost money by that). So the system would have to change. Either from bottom up by forming cooperatives that are internally fair but externally can compete in the current system or by a collapse and rebuilt, which bears the risk of not having control of what comes after. Th first option is slow - very slow. The second is something even high ranking economists consider possible (Citigroup memo!), so I guess they already have a plan how to save their wealth over such a crisis and deny a more fair system to emerge, but from that Memo I think, they are quite afraid that the chances are, change could happen then.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

@vvx: Yes - I agree. The current economy is basically a big Las Vegas. There is much more luck and sleaze involved than actually work or creativity in gaining money and power. The perfidious thing about the system is, that if you do not follow it, you will get into really bad situations and have no power. So obviously no one would deny taking advantage if one can as long as it does not conflict with personal morale (like I did prefer taking a job in ecology rather than economy and lost money by that). So the system would have to change. Either from bottom up by forming cooperatives that are internally fair but externally can compete in the current system or by a collapse and rebuilt, which bears the risk of not having control of what comes after. Th first option is slow - very slow. The second is something even high ranking economists consider possible (Citigroup memo!), so I guess they already have a plan how to save their wealth over such a crisis and deny a more fair system to emerge, but from that Memo I think, they are quite afraid that the chances are, change could happen then.

Well I guess the solution is to make it less about luck and sleaze ( does that mean less strip bars? ) and more about creativity and talent etc.

[auroraglacialis]

Yes - more about creativity, actual hands-on work and such. And by that, automatically huge differences in wages would not work out as it is incomprehensible that someone actually could work 100 times more (or be 100 times more creative) than someone else who does the same kind of job. As in cooperatives, I think it is ok for the regular worker who does his 8 or 9 hours welding to earn about as much as the engineer who makes the construction drawings for 8 or 9 hours (provided education is free as it used to be in Germany for example). Ok, the person with longer education should get a little more because they have less time to earn money in their life, but if they get twice as much as someone else that is enough, must not be 10 times as much or so. Basically people should do a job they are comfortable with instead of doing a job because it gives more money but makes them unhappy.

[PunkMaister]

@ AuroraGlacialis: Whoa hold your horses! How can anyone even think that a welder and an engineer are on the same level? Not even close is not even the same amount of responsibility either. While a Welder maybe responsible for the individual pieces of the structure he or she may have weld together. An engineer is responsible for the whole darn structure. Who do you think takes the fall if the whole thing falls apart? I'll give you a hint is not the welder.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

@ AuroraGlacialis: Whoa hold your horses! How can anyone even think that a welder and an engineer are on the same level? Not even close is not even the same amount of responsibility either. While a Welder maybe responsible for the individual pieces of the structure he or she may have weld together. An engineer is responsible for the whole darn structure. Who do you think takes the fall if the whole thing falls apart? I'll give you a hint is not the welder.

The theoretical concept of the structure only, both do equal ammounts of work. Ummm... staff on the ground get fired before middle management. So, yeah. The welder cops it.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by Spock

The theoretical concept of the structure only, both do equal ammounts of work. Ummm... staff on the ground get fired before middle management. So, yeah. The welder cops it.

No Spock if the building collapses after/or while being built they will not go after the freaking welder but after the engineer that designed it in the first place. So the engineer has a higher degree of responsibility and has to work that much harder to make sure everything is safe, the welder only has to make sure his/her little piece is done according to specifications.