Home | About | Donate

To Remedy 'Absolutely Anemic' Social Security Increase Amid Pandemic, Democrats' Bill Would Boost Payments by 3% in 2021

Reality is what it is. Counsels of perfection are easy, but pointless–who wouldn’t be perfect, if they could?

Biologists agree that the extinction event is being driven to a significant degree by human population growth. In fact, to deny this is a complete denial of biology. Yes, lifestyles / consumption patterns, etc. are adding to it. But it’s absurd to deny that deforestation,clearing for agriculture, depletions of fisheries and other destructions of habitat and displacement of wild creatures is a direct consequence of growing populations. Such denials are rooted in ideology that seeks to ignore the science.

Who said anything about seeking perfection? Strawman arguments are always imperfect.

Those are all symptoms of living inefficiency. Your denial plays into the hands of the corporations causing the problems. You are blaming the victims. We cannot ethically decrease the world’s population in the short term. However, we can decrease the unsustainable and immoral practices of greedy, profit motivated corporations and their sociopathic oligarchy owners.

No. I deny nothing. But you are. You must explain how, for example, depletion of fisheries is due even significantly to inefficiencies rather than a larger population of predators (us) eating fish. Are you saying, for example, that, more people can eat more fish without depleting the fisheries… that, like Jesus, you (or all of us) can multiply the loaves and fishes miraculously?

Are you saying that all those poor subsistence farmers and livestock owners in Africa, S. America, etc. …they can produce even more food for a growing population without further destruction of wild habitats? Because species extinctions in such places are being driven by destruction of habitats as land is being cleared for crops or for forage for livestock.

Or are you saying that everyone should change their diets everywhere to foraging for grubs and beetles? Is that the “efficiency” you have in mind ?

And at what point would we then decimate the grubs and other insects or the wild plants to which we’ve turned our foraging? Regardless of what food sources, you want us all to turn to, think about the logical conclusions of what you’re saying!

And then of course, there’s the limits of fresh water- in some places, a major problem! Where I live, in the arid west of the U.S., water has always been for fighting. The West has been experiencing (along with parts of the South) the fastest population growth in the US. All that growth is leading the cities to compete for water with projects to further de-water the rivers, which are already damaged by past diversions. Water conservation has been employed to varying degrees…but people still have to drink, bathe, wash clothes (in our high-efficiency washers), water our trees, veggie & other gardens, etc. Conservation is always good and IMO can always be improved, but there are logical limits to just how many people you can squeeze into an arid land!

In effect you are you saying, ignore physics and biology … infinite population growth is possible! How absurd you are being!

You also say

Just how is that? Where and how did I blame any victim?
Do you really think that because one understands the principles of biology that one is somehow blaming people for their existence? Again… how utterly absurd!

As for:

.
I’ve never said or even read or heard anyone say anything suggesting that; and it’s quite dishonest to put up such straw-men arguments. Advocating for a conscious, steady ratcheting down of population growth (to zero) until we reach some sustainable population does not require culling policies. It would, for example, be helped by promoting family planning, providing birth control access, public health and education and other human development capital that reduces the existing pressures for frequent reproduction…

The basic problem here is that you are attempting to force a problem with a complex set of causes (extinction & ecological devastation) into a binary formula in which you can blame it solely on just one factor (capitalism and/or the rich) and ignore the other critically important issues such as unsustainable population growth.

Of course, our society is wasteful. Of course capitalism produces extreme inequities and decisions that damage the commons - for example, routinely externalizing many of the costs and impacts to others-both present and future. I write about this all the time.

But that doesn’t mean that corporations are the only problem here. Fundamental principles of physics underlie the principles of biology- nothing grows to infinity, and most certainly not any population of any life form within a closed system. Please get this basic concept down because it has nothing to do with “blaming” anyone.

1 Like

It’s not my fault you are denying the truth, and instead are continuing to apologize for the greedy corporations who are willfully destroying the planet for profit by denying the people the ability to be living efficiently and sustainably.

Famines have been going on since prehistoric time, when people certainly weren’t living “inefficiently” or using fossil fuels.

That depends on what you mean by “short term”. It would take about 80 years to get past the hump without killing anyone already alive. And it could be done in a shorter time using a lottery system.

It is possibly your fault that you can’t distinguish between fact and fantasy. No where did I make such apology; and you can’t cite one instance in which I did. Furthermore, I never have and every regular reader here knows that to be the case. As proof you can read through all of my posts in CD. Not that you even bothered to read my previous post; for if you had you would know that you are misrepresenting my position.

As for “the truth”. As a famous film line goes, “You can’t handle the truth”. What you think of as “the truth” is instead your (uninformed) opinion. A conclusion unsupported by scientific principles.
Furthermore, you likely can’t find a single biologist who’d agree with your assertions that human population growth is a non-factor in the global problems. Not one. So who is likely correct: you, or the overwhelming conclusion of scientists?

The position to which you have locked yourself is faulty because it is ideological in basis, not scientific nor, because of that, rational.

Good luck. Perhaps I’m wrong, and it is actually not your fault that you can’t distinguish between such ideologically-derived conclusions and science. If so, my apologies. Having worked with the developmentally-disabled, it is not my desire to put down anyone for things that are beyond their control.

I won’t bother responding beyond this. So feel free to continue misrepresenting my position and making illogical, unsupportable claims. I’m by now well used to the extent to which belief- and the need to maintain it - will for some always trump fact no matter how silly the former or firmly established the latter. That’s precisely why we have a President Trump.

I’m afraid this guy just isn’t capable of rising above a mantra which he must recite because it matches with the narrow lens through which he sees the world. So it is for him, either black or white…and it can’t be black. I’ve already wasted too much time on him, seeing this.

1 Like

We’re not talking about prehistoric time. Focus!

A lottery system for what?
There is no ethical way to decrease the world’s population in the short term.

I see you avoid the topic by ranting endlessly off topic.