AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Will reducing human population on earth reduce our troubles?

124 18858
0ShimZ0
offline
0ShimZ0
116 posts
Nomad

You might have noticed that more and more people can'r find work, there are more and more food shorteges in certain parts of the world, unsufficient resources for everybody i.e. water, electricity, and so on.
The are many problems on a material plan, but we often forget what happengs on a moral level. From the moment i began existing as a conscient beying i have been feeling that life isn't valued enough or at all in our times and societies.

there's also the effect we have on the planet im not talking about our inpact on ecology (there is that too!!) i'm pointing out that we have made many spicies exting or on the verge of extinction, not to mention the enormous amount of resources we deploy often in detriment of other living creatures and other humans.

so the problems are here what are the solutions? is reducing our numbers is a solution?

  • 124 Replies
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

Such an idea that reducing the population at all will help shows a misunderstanding of the way economies work.

For if people were to start dying, it would be because the total output from jobs is less than what people need.

Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

I'm in favour of culling off old people if they don't pay an annual 'old people' tax that helps cover the costs of medical and social care that they inevitably need. This reduces the population and helps the economy because we're getting rid of economic dependants and not economic assets.

supremzach
offline
supremzach
95 posts
Nomad

how about you can have up to 2 kids per couple

thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

how about you can have up to 2 kids per couple


In a perfect world, that would sustain the population exactly to what it is now. However, this is not a perfect world. The rule is unenforceable throughout the whole world, there are twins and triplets and such, and there will always be children out of wedlock and multiple marriages ending in children. There're too many variables for this to work.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

Congrats on 8,000th post, alt!

This is what I said earlier. Still, no one has addressed my objections to this idea. I am explaining why such a system is immoral:

If they're not suicidal, there must be a reason for why they want to survive, no?

Thus, it is highly immoral to "euthanize" them.

Also, for all you eugeneticists, Social Darwinism is a much better choice, as it is more objective.

The planet can handle 5 billion people. It can't handle 7 billion.


Populations are self-stabilizing. My first objection is that, assuming the planet can only handle 5 billion people, then it will decrease whether or not you create such a law.

I say option two, while more cold blooded and "cruel" is the better of the two options.


If this is truly your opinion, then Social Darwinism is MUCH better, because it is more objective in measurement of "unfit"-ness.

Would it not also be more ethical to get rid of the infirm elderly who are nearing their twilight years and spend ever waking moment sitting in a rest home that they will never leave unless it is in a body bag or in the back of an ambulance?


Your entire post, Valkery, takes the fallacious assumption that people who do not produce are a burden on the producers. Not so in a Social Darwinist Free Market! Social Darwinism is simply a better choice than excessive and what you call "heartless" legislation.

Here is a little more on Social Darwinism, for all you Eugeneticists out there

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
In particular I am referring to free-market Social Darwinism. Why is this a better option?
In Social Darwinism, you are forced to produce more than you consume. Those unable to produce are "selected out," while those who are productive survive, which benefits all the survivors who do not have to support the unproductive.
It would be hypocritical for any of you to attack these ideas but not attack valkery's, because he advocates the same thing, but in his case, it more readily falls under the label of "genocide," because the survival depends on those in power, rather than nature - a much more objective source, and one that is more accurate.

Another possible argument for reducing the human population:

I think that the answer is simple. Get rid of the starving, acctually starving, not simply impoverished, and then try to rebuld the economy with many less people.


The answer is not as simple as you think - why should the economy be rebuilt easier with less people? Because of division of labor, isn't it better to have more people in an economy? Also, these people are starving because of AIDS, environmental things like drought, perhaps, and the lack of a free market.

The fallacy: (my tl;dr version)

This entire idea takes the fallacious assumption that people who do not produce are a burden on the producers.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

It didn't recognize my post for some reason, so, sorry.

27153
offline
27153
90 posts
Nomad

That's terrible! But probably true

Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

That's terrible! But probably true


PLEASE!!! You didn't care to read my objection!

If it's true, then it's not terrible.
If it's terrible, it's not true.

So by asserting it's terrible, you are saying it's not true, thus contradicting yourself.
0ShimZ0
offline
0ShimZ0
116 posts
Nomad

I must disagree with you, Einfach.
i read the link you posted about the Social Darwinism.
the problem that i have lifted isn't about survival neither about who should we kill in order to have less people on earth. but a much simpler one: WILL REDUCING HUMAN POPULATION, REDUCE OUR TROUBLES
i want your opinion on that matter and not who we should kill, please.
and to everybody else who want to get ride of infirms or wants a live under the laws of the wild (the strongest survive) think twice, because there is always someone stronger than you, always!
that's th reason why we need each other.

Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

to everybody else who want to get ride of infirms or wants a live under the laws of the wild

You may have misunderstood the link, or the link may not be consistent, since there have been many different accounts of Social Darwinism.

It is those who are the best equipped to survive that will. It's not the "laws of the wild" at all.

that's th reason why we need each other.


This sounds like rhetoric - it's fallacious. Your previous sentences do not support this one at all.
Drink
offline
Drink
1,621 posts
Blacksmith

well tbh i dont see how much problems it can solve..maybe less food and water would be needed but other then that i dont see how reducing population would help anything not like we can do to much now as sense we cant go around killing tons of people

Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

WILL REDUCING HUMAN POPULATION, REDUCE OUR TROUBLES


And my response:
Because of division of labor, isn't it better to have more people in an economy?
driejen
offline
driejen
486 posts
Nomad

I once thought that human population is the direct cause to our problems with resources and employment, but now I come to believe that it is the result of a faulty 'economic' system.
People become unemployed due to machinization, which should be seen as a good thing that relieves labour off of humans, but instead is used purely to make more profit and not to benefit humanity. What is the point of more goods if less people can afford it?
Planned obselence is a joke and doesn't make any economic sense, and is driven purely by profit. There is no logical sense in not making something out of the best materials suitable for the job and making it last longer and making it more environmentally friendly and yet bussinesses would rather churn out cheap made products to make more profit in order to stay in competition.
Poor people don't starve because of a food shortage, they starve because they have no money to buy the food. Poorer contries can't get out of debt and have to get more loans because of interest and coercion to give cheaper goods and labour for the purposes of richer contries.
It doesn't make sense to continue to push forward with technology that use non-renewable energy sources and build a system based around resources that will be disappear, and yet most bussinesses don't want to make big changes and start using more renewable energy because they are unprofitable.

The problem with today's world is the money, there is no real money as all money is debt. Money is made with debt and interests produce more debt. The only way to pay the debt is with more loans to create more money which produce more debt. Inherently there will always be inflation even if there were to be less people in the world. Bussinesses are also primarily motivated by profit, which don't always coincide with what is healthy, fair and sustainable so I don't really think that reducing the human population would do anything to solve our problems.

Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

People become unemployed due to machinization, which should be seen as a good thing that relieves labour off of humans, but instead is used purely to make more profit and not to benefit humanity. What is the point of more goods if less people can afford it?

You will have more goods - more capital. Mechanization is a very positive force. It increases the wealth of people as a whole, which is not determined by how many people are employed, but by how many goods are produced. Also, it does not necessarily create a loss in employment, because with this, new jobs are created.

If anything, it increases the value of money, because you have more goods for the same dollar amount of money.
Poorer contries can't get out of debt and have to get more loans because of interest and coercion to give cheaper goods and labour for the purposes of richer contries.

This doesn't make sense - if poorer countries cannot get out of debt, it is not because of this. Why does someone sell anything in the first place if they are not earning anything from it? If they are rational, then their "cheaper goods and labour" will be for their benefit.
The problem with today's world is the money, there is no real money as all money is debt.

No - money is really just a mode of acquiring stuff. So it does have value.
Inherently there will always be inflation even if there were to be less people in the world.

This would only be because there is an increasing amount of currency and / or a decreasing amount of goods.
Bussinesses are also primarily motivated by profit, which don't always coincide with what is healthy, fair and sustainable so I don't really think that reducing the human population would do anything to solve our problems.

Businesses ARE primarily motivated by profit, but the only way of creating profit for a business is through mutually beneficial trades, since they cannot use coercion, and excluding scams. Thus, the primary way for a business to earn profit is through helping others.
driejen
offline
driejen
486 posts
Nomad

You will have more goods - more capital. Mechanization is a very positive force. It increases the wealth of people as a whole, which is not determined by how many people are employed, but by how many goods are produced. Also, it does not necessarily create a loss in employment, because with this, new jobs are created.

I do think it is a good thing, but at the same time it creates unemployment. It creates a boundary between people money wise. Can you give me an example of how mechanisation can produce more jobs?

This doesn't make sense - if poorer countries cannot get out of debt, it is not because of this. Why does someone sell anything in the first place if they are not earning anything from it? If they are rational, then their "cheaper goods and labour" will be for their benefit.

So you think interest rates for the huge loans don't keep poor contries poor? People would sell cheap goods because they are forced to, it is the only way they can make a living and cannot try to sell things for higher prices for they will be rejected. But I'm sure you think that people working in sweatshops and living on $2 a day is just.

No - money is really just a mode of acquiring stuff. So it does have value.

Money comes from central banks out of a loan, and non-reserve money, 90%, can then be loaned out without actually putting up any of the deposit money to create 90% on top of the original 100%, creating more money out of thin air and causing inflation.

This would only be because there is an increasing amount of currency and / or a decreasing amount of goods.

But the number amount of currency will always be increasing because since all money is essentially debt and attached with an interest, there will always be more debt than there is actual currency, and so you need to print out even more money out of loans.

Businesses ARE primarily motivated by profit, but the only way of creating profit for a business is through mutually beneficial trades, since they cannot use coercion, and excluding scams. Thus, the primary way for a business to earn profit is through helping others.

I'm not saying that businesses are using coercion, but the fact that they are motivated by profit means that there is no incentive to push for renewable/sustainable resources until we hit a deadend. I would think most consumers wouldn't spend rediculous amounts of money to custom make more efficient products, and producing such products are unprofitable or won't sell well and would lead to bankrupcy for a business. The fact that people wan't more sustainable products doesn't mean that businesses are going to sell more sustainable products when it is not as profitable. Pointing out mutually beneficial trades doesn't really attack my argument since I am saying that even though it is a trade that benefits both parties, it is not an efficient system and in some cases rewards inefficiency with profitability which leads to wasted resources.
Showing 46-60 of 124