Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they are quite upfront about their values, and I suspect they would quite likely be OK with being labelled human-centric, as would I!
Certainly, it was just more of a general criticism toward such a view, as leading to long term degradation of the world. I totally get how humans would always protitize humanity first, but in the long term we have some issues such as overfishing, global warming, biodiversity loss etc. as a result. But the esiest would of course to not belive in thos issues, and have cool toys
Selfish reasons to want more humans
131–140 of 480 posts
Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans
#132It's a no brainer, no ?
Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they are quite upfront about their values, and I suspect they would quite likely be OK with being labelled human-centric, as would I!
Certainly, it was just more of a general criticism toward such a view, as leading to long term degradation of the world. I totally get how humans would always protitize humanity first, but in the long term we have some issues such as overfishing, global warming, biodiversity loss etc. as a result. But the esiest would of course to not belive in thos issues, and have cool toys
If humanity changes the current environment enough, then it will no longer be the once ideal environment to that continues to sustain humanity indefinitely.
Going on a tangent, a lot of environmentalists have a marketing problem.
Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans
#134Our current population is being propped up by all number of finite resources, most significantly oil, for which we have no certainty of finding more supply of in the future. With a higher population, we're depleting those resources faster.
It may in fact be better to get to a lower level of population which is long-term stable. We are aggressively burning through our natural resources and while humanity won't go extinct our population is doomed to absolutely plummet during an age of poverty.
Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans
#135Seems to be fixated on the idea that only Human Resources matter at the expense of all other resources. Our current population is being propped up by all number of finite resources, most significantly oil, for which we have no certainty of finding more supply of in the future. With a higher population, we're depleting those resources faster. It may in fact be better to get to a lower level of population which is long…
I think the OP would say oil is "basically not a catastrophic resource shortage." This seems like a typical misinterpretation of exponential growth as linear growth. There's literally fixed mass on the planet. Growth cannot continue forever no matter how many geniuses it might produce.
Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’ve got that there are a lot of unintended pregnancies. You’ve got that there is an impact on the environment by humanity. That does not an argument make as much as the points in TFA.
The argument is that more people is better. The Earth carries 8 billion people today, headed toward 10-11 billion by 2100. Why are there so many people? Unintended pregnancies. Less unintended pregnancies (empowered women, family planning, etc) constrains the pipeline of aggregate suffering (because the evidence is clear we're not going to do anything about it current state; why would we presume something would be do…
Population decline doesn’t guarantee human liberty.
Factory farms reflect the hierarchies we see in society. Not the other way around.
I can see unfree (in a non-trivial sense) human labour becoming more valuable in a world with less human labour and no suitable substitutes.
Global population is not quite orthogonal to many of our social problems.
Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans
#137There might be 1,000 certified geniuses per billion, but we are still slaves to probability. That genius might be born in the slums of Calcutta or in the middle of the Amazon rainforest or in the vastness of the Mongolian steppes. I guess the hope would be that 3 or 4 might have the luck to be born to a middle class or higher family in the first world.
Also, whatever this dude wants, the world is in major decline. For example, because of China's one child policy, their population will be halved in 50 or 70 years and nothing can stop that. Japan has a high over 40 population, Italy, Germany, Spain, and especially South Korea. Russia has been declining in population and with the war, the best and brightest have left Russia, never to return (they are devoloping lives, wives, children wherever they are now), and the meat grinder of the war. Same with Ukraine.
The same thing happened in ancient Rome as well. It got so expensive to raise a child in Rome (yes, inflation existed back then as well), because of money pouring into the administrative city of Rome - for the same reason now in the first world, that people stopped having children. Even back then they had rudimentary birth control. The Roman Emperors gave all kinds of incentives for families to have children - grants and tax reductions, but it was not enough.
Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Billions have been lifted out of poverty in China and India alone. Africa is next. The problem is not too many people. If anything, people who think there are too many people are a problem.
The combined population of those countries is 2.8 billion. For your assertion to be true, 71% of those countries would have had to have been in poverty in the recent past and now are not.
Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans
#139Seems to be fixated on the idea that only Human Resources matter at the expense of all other resources. Our current population is being propped up by all number of finite resources, most significantly oil, for which we have no certainty of finding more supply of in the future. With a higher population, we're depleting those resources faster. It may in fact be better to get to a lower level of population which is long…
> Historically, as we run out of a resource (whale oil, elephant tusks, seabird guano), we transition to a new technology based on a more abundant resource—and there are basically no major examples of catastrophic resource shortages in the industrial age. I think the OP would say oil is "basically not a catastrophic resource shortage." This seems like a typical misinterpretation of exponential growth as linear growth…
Oil made the 20th century absolutely explode in terms of population growth, we went from less than 2B to more than 6B in the 20th century and 8B now. Whale oil, elephant tusks, and seabird guano did nothing like that. How does one reasonably expect to replace a miracle? Electrification comes nowhere close, not that it isn't worth doing.
Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument is that more people is better. The Earth carries 8 billion people today, headed toward 10-11 billion by 2100. Why are there so many people? Unintended pregnancies. Less unintended pregnancies (empowered women, family planning, etc) constrains the pipeline of aggregate suffering (because the evidence is clear we're not going to do anything about it current state; why would we presume something would be do…
Your edits have certainly improved both comments. Population decline doesn’t guarantee human liberty. Factory farms reflect the hierarchies we see in society. Not the other way around. I can see unfree (in a non-trivial sense) human labour becoming more valuable in a world with less human labour and no suitable substitutes. Global population is not quite orthogonal to many of our social problems.