Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

College, man.

[redwallzyl]

Malthisian hellscape? In the USA, people don't even have enough kids to replace the previous people, let alone headed for an overpopulation crisis.

If it wasn't clear, that was sarcasm in the form of intentional exaggeration. While not a Malthusian hellscape, though, having kids they can't afford does keep people poor, and then produce another generation of poor people, while the fact that rich people reproduce below replacement rate means their wealth becomes concentrated over generations, ie, it's a good thing for them.

your challenging well established anthropological theories now?

uhhh yup, sounds like it. It's not my fault if some anthropologists are batshit.

Your dismissal seems predicated on a right wing meme misrepresentation of my vocabulary. May I advise you read the actual acedemic litriture?

[misko27]

Don't do college, kids.

(wait a sec... don't mix metaphors either, kids. It leads to bad things. )

[Reelya]

Actually, I find the idea that we can solve poverty by simply having the poor people breed less to be quaint. There's a reason that no such society exists. If there were no poor people, then middle-class people would end up cleaning the toilets and flipping the burgers for minimum wage. The system needs the underclass to function the way it does. People falling through the cracks is an inevitable consequence of how everything else works.

[Maximum Spin]

Actually, I find the idea that we can solve poverty by simply having the poor people breed less to be quaint. There's a reason that no such society exists. If there were no poor people, then middle-class people would be cleaning the toilets. The system needs the underclass to function the way it does.

Did someone say any such thing?

[EnigmaticHat]

Actually, I find the idea that we can solve poverty by simply having the poor people breed less to be quaint. There's a reason that no such society exists. If there were no poor people, then middle-class people would be cleaning the toilets. The system needs the underclass to function the way it does.

Did someone say any such thing?

That sounds a whole lot like giving up.

Most people are not geographically mobile.  If they live in a bad place in all likelihood they were born in a bad place.  The viewpoint you're expressing only makes sense if people believe they themselves should never have been born.  That's not going to be a popular perspective.

Also, again, the USA went down the road of sterilizing poor people before.  It was awful and useless.  What you're suggesting is the same thing you're just suggesting that it be done via social pressure rather than chemicals.  Which like... sure, that's nowhere near as bad, but its still awful and useless.

I'm not even suggesting that. I'm suggesting that people should understand their circumstances and voluntarily choose not to have kids they can't afford. Of course this will never happen, but that's not my problem. The choice to continue along the path to an unsustainable Malthusian hellscape is entirely their own.

[EnigmaticHat]

OK, he's saying if poor people breed the same amount than poverty will get worse.  Implying that if poor people breed less poverty will stay the same or get better.  That's a very similar idea to what Reelya said.

[Maximum Spin]

OK, he's saying if poor people breed the same amount than poverty will get worse.  Implying that if poor people breed less poverty will stay the same or get better.  That's a very similar idea to what Reelya said.

Uh, it doesn't actually imply that. That's a formal fallacy, denying the antecedent.

[redwallzyl]

Don't do college, kids.

(wait a sec... don't mix metaphors either, kids. It leads to bad things. )

Implying what? That my arguments can somehow be dismissed because of strawmans? Maximumspin through out quite the insult to me and I don't intend to let that slide.

[EnigmaticHat]

Okay, fine.  What you said is different than what Reelya said but it is both similar to and worse than what Reelya said.  What Reelya said (as in, his negative example of not-breeding = less poverty) was coming from an altruistic perspective.  It was saying, "I know I'm telling you not to breed and that's rude, but I'm at least benevolent.  I'm at least trying to help."

What you're saying is coming from a perspective of judgement.  Its saying "I know I'm telling you not to breed, I'm not going to acknowledge that that's rude, and to top it all off I'm going to blame you for a future thing that is not certain to happen."

Malthusianism is basically discredited.  He was speaking at a time of early industrialism and urbanization, expressing the fearful undercurrent that existed in an agricultural society that was losing its aristocrats.  Basically Tolkien without the pretensions of fantasy.  Or to put it more concretely, he wasn't looking at the modern world and saying that the exponential growth of the unwashed masses would lead to environmental collapse.  He was looking at places like Age of Sail/Victorian era London or NYC and saying that the growing population of urban poor would lead to starvation.  This didn't happen.  He wasn't talking about places like Syria, Nigeria, or Alabama that are stereotypical hellholes in the modern day.  He was talking about the urban centers of places like the US, the UK, France, ect.  Notice that those places are not starving hellholes, but rather some of the most food secure places in the world (putting aside people who don't have money to buy food because regardless the SUPPLY is there.)

Additionally, to believe that overpopulation will lead to ecological collapse is to specifically go against the consensus of modern anthropologists and sociologists, who consistently conclude that when people feel secure and prosperous they have less children and when people feel insecure or poor they have more kids.  When rich people wait to have kids, that's not them being enlightened and rational.  Nor is it them doing their duty.  That's them doing what humans do according to human nature, same as poor people are.  What's causing the modern day ecological collapse?  Cars, coal, and cigarettes.  These things have no particular connection to poor people.  Or rich people, or urban people, or rural people.  They're technological problems with technological solutions; its not about population numbers.  If it were, the greenhouse gas emissions of each country should closely relate to its population.  But that's not what happens.

Saying that someone has a duty to do something is different from saying they should be forced to do it, but its still a step in the same direction.  Like when I say that out of touch old people shouldn't vote, I'm aware that's a rude thing to say.  If I wasn't emotionally angry at an entire generation, I wouldn't say things like that.  Its like how when people say things like "I'm such a nice guy, women owe me sex" or "you should kill yourself" or "uninstall plz" those are considered impolite sentiments.  Cause you're pressuring someone into doing something that is not your decision to make and/or is not in their interests.  And is also an implied insult.

[misko27]

Don't do college, kids.

(wait a sec... don't mix metaphors either, kids. It leads to bad things. )

Implying what? That my arguments can somehow be dismissed because of strawmans? Maximumspin through out quite the insult to me and I don't intend to let that slide.

That was a reply to nenjin's "College, man." comment, not yours.

My joke is that going to college forces you to go through stupid ideological phases.

[MrRoboto75]

Most of my college education was focused on politics and government policies anyway, maybe I skipped that phase.

Or maybe I'm in it and don't realize it, who knows.

[Rolan7]

Additionally, to believe that overpopulation will lead to ecological collapse is to specifically go against the consensus of modern anthropologists and sociologists, who consistently conclude that when people feel secure and prosperous they have less children and when people feel insecure or poor they have more kids.  When rich people wait to have kids, that's not them being enlightened and rational.  Nor is it them doing their duty.  That's them doing what humans do according to human nature, same as poor people are. 

I wouldn't simplify that to "human nature" as if it's mere instinct or an unknown process.  Richer people have more resources for family planning, and better sexual education (a real concern with the state of sex ed in most public schools).

It seems a bit peevish to try to deny them any credit for controlling their reproduction.  Just because that's what they do, on average, doesn't mean it isn't virtuous.  And nothing about any of that supports your theory that "overpopulation won't lead to ecological collapse".

What's causing the modern day ecological collapse?  Cars, coal, and cigarettes.  These things have no particular connection to poor people.  Or rich people, or urban people, or rural people.  They're technological problems with technological solutions; its not about population numbers.  If it were, the greenhouse gas emissions of each country should closely relate to its population.  But that's not what happens.

It's not merely a function of population, but it's still directly related.  Americans, both rich and poor, consume and waste a lot more than other people per capita.  We can try to reduce our waste per capita, but growing the population directly worsens the problem. 

And population growth is exponential, especially if unchecked.  Since poor people by their "nature" have larger families, it'll even get worse as resources get even scarcer.

Saying that someone has a duty to do something is different from saying they should be forced to do it, but its still a step in the same direction.  Like when I say that out of touch old people shouldn't vote, I'm aware that's a rude thing to say.  If I wasn't emotionally angry at an entire generation, I wouldn't say things like that.  Its like how when people say things like "I'm such a nice guy, women owe me sex" or "you should kill yourself" or "uninstall plz" those are considered impolite sentiments.  Cause you're pressuring someone into doing something that is not your decision to make and/or is not in their interests.  And is also an implied insult.

That's pretty general, but I'll make the specific statement:
People shouldn't have families unless they think they'll be able to support them.  And they should be fully informed before making that judgement.

I feel like it's expected to admire and support those who pass on their genes by making babies, and I don't.  I'm kinda jealous, and vaguely resent how much my taxes subsidize a process which is necessary, but already too common.

In my opinion, our future would be a lot brighter with proper family planning resources (including education) for the entire public.

[EnigmaticHat]

Right, and that's why China has a GDP higher than the rest of the world combined, just like everyone in the past said they would.  If I learned anything in my stats class its that you can't look at the chart and assume it keeps going.

Also, look at that chart more closely.  At a confidence interval of 95%, in 2100 the population of the US will have gone up by 40 million to 210 million.  Or to put it another way, for the time you referenced, within a standard confidence interval, the highest predicted growth is over 500% of the lowest predicted growth.  I don't doubt that the chart was done correctly, but what its saying is "we don't know what the population will be in 2100 and it would be silly to say we do."

[bloop_bleep]

Yeah. I have a feeling he left on the default Afghanistan option instead of switching it to the "world" option. The 95% confidence interval on the world graph seems to range between 10 and 13 billion at 2100.

Also, what does the "+/- 0.5 child" interval mean exactly? Does it mean the predicted population if the average family had 1/2 less or more children?