March 14th, 2006 at 10:45 pm

jazzman:

I admit that I sometimes submit posts lacking workable ideas. Sometimes, rather, I cannot resist playing devil’s advocate…” etc.

P.S. Just out of curiosity, it might be fun to live long enough to see to what state things have to get for 6 + billion people, give or take a few, to be enticed to agree on something for their own good.

Cheers.

The focus was the business angle of global warming. Interesting, too…

I admit that I sometimes submit posts lacking workable ideas. Sometimes, rather, I cannot resist playing

devil’s advocate or making other efforts for the sport of provoking responses to see where someone might be

coming from. Occassionally someone doesn’t see through my ruse and gets up tight, but I think they get it

after a while.

However, I do think my “depopulation” offer is the fastest, cheapest and most acceptable method to

accomplish a necessity of “sustainability.” I have no hope presently that it could ever get the required

support to accomplish an adequate result, but when one realizes the only obstacle is the lack of agreement,

it seems eminently more desirable to keep the idea out in front in plain view where, perhaps, it might keep

working its way into people’s consideration and, given the unlikely success or the amount of adaptation

required of other “solutions,” may start looking sensible. Those who most fear population reduction are

politicians who measure success by how many people fall under their spells and those who fear the loss of

markets or provided resources. They are so engrossed in the nonsense of the necessity of ever more growth in

a closed system, ie one with limits, that they fail to realize the proportionality of things. Their

instigating unrationable behavior is a probable risk factor.

I would gladly advocate such a “solution” wherever there seems to be an inkling of insight or agreeability,

but I’m too much of a skeptic and cynic to waste much effort trying to convince people unless for fun or

sport.

I have ideas regarding other “causes” which I also think are practical and are ignored at the risk of

sensible future behavior, mostly regarding transportation, which nobody takes seriously similarly to

population reduction, but which I keep throwing out in case someone might take notice by tripping over them.

But I don’t expect to ever “sell” an adequate body of enthusiasts on them.

So it goes.

Cheers.

I’m aware that you didn’t use the word obviate (do away with /make unnecessary) in referring to human population, I did hence the i.e. It was a play on your usage of the word. I obviously do not advocate genocide, I used that term to say that there are other population reductions that are guaranteed to work besides your unrealistic one (again which you note.) I don’t know if population decimations are a primary cause of your spikes that follow those events. That would seem to imply an innate desire on the part of the affected population to fill the vacated niches. Maybe it’s the nature vacuum abhorrence thing – reminds me of Foundation’s Harry Seldon’s Psychohistory. If my ranting seems self-evident to you – good, however it’s about as self-evident as the truths in the US Constitution are to most of the beltway and the rest of the world.

The Canard I referred to is the one that is evoked when one uses Lemmings as an example of overpopulation. I.e., they commit suicide en masse when their food supply runs out as Walt Disney and other wildlife embellishers have portrayed. I was not referring to a Malthusian population crisis which also is self evident in predator/prey population fluctuations. I’m old and I do remember the halcyon Eisenhower Era when all we had to worry about was the H-bomb and proliferation and I also lament the creeping coarsening of attitude, eroding of civility and falling standards I perceive, however some things have improved. I find more tolerance and acceptance of diverse cultures and ideas and am encouraged by the rise of the blogosphere. I disagree that posting laments or ranting as I am fond of is tantamount to procrastination. At least I try not to violate the planet or the rights of man. Kvetching about a situation that I think will be solved by itself.

Peace

I did not use the word “Obviate” in referring to the reduction of human population and am not even sure what

its use would better denote. I have certainly implied that this excess in numbers is not needed for the

human kind to be reasonably secure in its continuation, endurance, longevity, permanence, perpetuation or

survival.

The methodology, as I said, was described in the post directly before your posted criticism of its lack. If

you prefer genocide to attrition from dying from so called “natural causes,” then I suggest you come right

out and advocate it. I maintain, however, it would be more difficult to obtain equivalent results that way

than by “reduced replacement.” In fact, as I have mentioned in an earlier post to these blogs, essentially

all dramatic reductions in populations that have occurred in the past inevitably resulted in an INCREASE in

net population due to a spike in reproduction after the cause of reduction has ceased functioning. This is

regardless of the cause of reduction, man made or natural phenomena. Such a spike is already occurring in

areas depopulated by the tsumanis in the Indian Ocean. A spike familiar to most post WW II generations is popularly called “the baby boom.” Such spikes occurred after most decimating wars and the “black plague,” etc.

The rest remaining in your second paragraph referring to me in your 8:57 post on 10 March I consider self evident or have referred to simialar things in previous posts, have no argument with and won’t waste more time on since you have already restated it.

The canard is not a canard (unless you are referring to “drowning themselves in the pond” or something.) But

lemmings, as do all living organisms, and as implied above, over populate till some resonance or

perturbation of balance passes a tipping point (how’s that for a current buzz word?) and a significant

population reduction ensues. All species of all kingdoms and those in between create surplus young. These

young provide what all others need to survive. The system decrees that they are meant to be fodder for

something else. It just so happens that when microscopic pathogens were discovered and the great fad of

their destruction and control came about, they happened to be the cause of mostly childhood diseases. The

fervor of the medical profession to stamp out these relatively easy to kill pathogens unwittingly helped set

off the great acceleration of the geometic progression of human population by preserving these surplus children. But so it goes.

“…comfortably support 15 billion…” depends greatly on your definition of “comfortable.” Yours is

probably different from mine. As, again, I have said, new generations, having never known anything better,

usually accept conditions as they find them. That is not to say they might not imagine something better. But

many changes that occur in one’s lifetime are lamented by the old. Perhaps, if you grow to an old age, 15

billion may not look so enticing.

I am not good at convincing anyone of anything by appealing to their innate sense of altruism, either. I

tend not to try to convince anymore and hope people are able to figure out how to live their own lives.

I have not written anything contrary to your statements of facts in your 5th paragraph to me in your above

mentioned post. As to your sensitivities, they are apparently yours and you are entitled to them. Good luck.

I find no reason to take issue with the tenor of the paragraph. Mostly, I think you are preaching to the choir on this round.

Let’s see your suggestions that Potter can consider to be something substantial to do immediately to “obviate our concerns.” Doing nothing but posting laments in these blogs is paramount to mere

procrastination.

Cheers.

I am the last person to ask, “How moral is the church’s position?” I have not the least idea how moral its

position is. My guess is that it is about as moral as many institutions. It seems to me that one of its

major characteristics is hypocrisy. Since it doesn’t much affect my life, I don’t pay a whole lot of

attention to it. For convenience, whatever other characteristics it might have, I put in the same file under

“hypocrisy” until I find out otherwise, which I have not. I think the church is mostly a place where those

who like to have someone else figure things out can live in reasonable care-free comfort if they only follow

some rules or confess they haven’t. There seems to be a fair bit of power mongering that goes on in “the”

church. I guess gross leeching off their congregations and otherwise taking advantage of them could be

pretty immoral from some points of view, but those victimized seem to relish it. So who am I to judge?

Regarding the human soul and its nurturing, I regard it as blatant hype. I am not aware of anything the church has offered as evidence of a soul as they try to portray it. If the church officials know it is a hype, I suppose their dishonesty is about as immoral a lie as any.

Cheers.

How do we, who are concerned about the quality of life for the proceeding generations of humans and other species, convince the dazed and dozing majority that constructive thought and action needs to be taken?

Many in the US are Christian, and a lot of those are “born agains” or “fundamentalists.” However, I think there are only a tiny minority of those who aren’t thinking about what college they want their kids to go to, and how they are going to save for retirement. They may say they believe in the Rapture, but I do think most of them aren’t ready to give up any future planning.

In some ways Global Warming might be an environmental event that most humans can understand. It’s easy to dismiss the extinction of thousands of species, because it isn’t up close and personal. But its hard to shake off the feeling that something isn’t right when you are running around in a t-shirt and shorts at Christmas time, when ten years ago you were wearing a down jacket.

The Bush Administration has tried its best to ignore Global Warming, but it hasn’t been successful. It has been successful in ignoring all other environmental issues.

We probably won’t be able to do much about climate change, but if we start thinking ahead and talking about it we may be able to make more constructive decisions.

Reduction of population: China has a one child policy. They still have the policy even though the original purpose of avoiding massive starvation is past. They see it as the key to becoming prosperous.

With enough fear of the future, real dramatic population control might become the norm. It would be nice to have population control through birth control instead of war, famine, and disease.

Delaying having a first child until 40 isn’t realistic. 30 or 35 would be better and in many places that is exactly what is happening. There was an interesting article in the Economist on this. Fertility is lessened at 35 and it plummets between 38 and 40.

I am in favor of population reduction. I do think humans are a blight on the planet. I’m also very concerned about the future of humans. I have six children that I want to have happy, joyful lives. ( I contributed to the production of one, though I must admit if I hadn’t had big time infertility issues I probably would have been responsible for more than one. )

I think Camille’s observation that we could do a lot better without sacrificing much. We could be a little warmer in the summer and colder in the winter. Our cars could be much more efficient, though slower.

I think there could be some major improvements with just a little better planning.

Houses that have most of their windows facing south are lighter and they warm up in the winter. With an overhang they are shaded in the summer. Its called passive solor gain and it should be the norm instead of the exception to the norm.

What would be wrong if every new construction was required to have X amount of solar panels. Think of how cheap solar panels would become.

I do think the libertarians have a point that the best way to spur innovation in new energy forms and energy conservation is through raising the price of energy. When California got jabbed by Enron there was a 17% reduction in energy use. The saying became, let’s do and end run around Enron. Most of that was turning off the lights and turning down the thermostat.

I’d like to see some serious thought about mass transit and clean busses making a comeback. I tried to use the mass transit in Portland when I went up there with my kids as a tourist. I won’t do it again. It took me over 45 min. one way and an hour and a half the other, in the rain, to get to the science museum. I could have driven it in 10 to 15 min. You aren’t going to get people to use mass transit when it take 3 to 5 5 times as long to get from point A to point B.

Now this has been a lot of disjointed rambling. Oh well, It’s time for dinner.

N:>> American Constitution, written by landed 18th century elites…>/i> The founders’ elite landedness was what enabled them to be taken seriously as leaders because this was the dominant paradigm for authority. They were remarkably prescient in adopting the Greek democratic ideal and placing the responsibility for governance in the hands of the individual 1st and foremost. The abstract notions embodied in the constitution are a testament to their farsighted ideals. Admittedly semanticists have a field day with some of the wording and lawyers pervert its intent if it serves their ends but it’s a living document and can be changed, albeit difficultly (it should be difficult.) 3rd parties’ platforms (consciences) are usually co-opted by the majority parties if they are seen as populist and dangerous to entrenched power. Until there is a consciousness shift on a grand enough scale to actually precipitate a factional shift we have to make what we have better. Even if the powers that be were replaced you would still likely have 2 major players. See my comment to CCM in Hart/Perle (last post) on pluralistic disenfranchisement.

Joel writes:>> It is this concern which I said could have been obviated which, no doubt, you will understand from a re-reading of your referred-to post. >> Yes, I can read. You said if the population were reduced (i.e., obviated) that the GW and life challenging topic would be moot. I merely inquired as to your preferred method of population control as you made a provocative assertion sans methodology, therefore I suggested options. Obviously neither my suggestions or your later straw man proposal will actually work; genocide occurs frequently and eugenics was tried in the 1940’s.

Joel:>> Perhaps closer reading and then a period of thought will obviate your need to ask questions which had just previously been answered. >> Perhaps a period of thought an less assumption regarding the fact that I didn’t address any points in your fatuous (facetious?) 3rd post might obviate the need for a knee-jerk defense. Your method as outlined in the post that I did not have time to read before submitting my post (I generally only have the opportunity to post once a weekday – and that is usually the time ROS is on the air. If I listen to the show I forego that night’s response) is obviously a pipe dream against human nature and has a proverbial snowball’s chance of being actualized (as you noted so why posit it if not to be polemic?) It is guaranteed to work if implemented, well so is genocide. Also it’s no accident that female fertility generally occurs between the 12th and 45th years and optimally biologically from 16 to 25 for both the baby’s health and the mother’s. After age 40, genetic birth defects increase and parent’s available childrearing energies begin to wane and the children are not supervised as well as they might be. I usually would not quote Dr. Laura, but in this case I agree with her. She maintains that it’s selfish to bring children into the world after 40 for many reasons. Potter’s musings are probably the most likely form of meaningful population control to take place. The reason you failed to notice a proposal for a solution is because I don’t see a man made one which doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to ameliorate the situation. Human beings (especially western ones) have violated nature and the planet for centuries. First by Judeo-Christian authority (man has dominion) and then from the industrial revolution on, abetted by Darwinian and Freudian philosophies, many people believe that it is their right and heritage to exploit any resources the “fittest� can wrest from the world. I don’t see this aspect changing in the mass reality over the short term. I believe that razib’s scenario is as close to being accurate as any other’s and ultimately the environment is probably not bothered by human’s interference either way except for geologically slight perturbations or thermonuclear events. In any case it’s the humans that have to adapt, Gaia will survive.

Joel:>> A reduction of 90% would take us back only to a level existing just a couple or few hundred years ago… And the earth, at that time, was in the process of being overrun by people With optimum allocation of resources and appropriate technology, the earth could probably comfortably support 15 billion, however our gluttonous beef appetite will have to be curbed somewhat. (I enjoy a good steak as much as anyone but it is a poor choice for optimum protein/acre.) BTW Lemming suicide is a canard.

Joel:>> I don’t know how to convince anyone of anything except to appeal to their sense of logic? Logic is highly variable and not at all uniform except in a formal Quinean symbolic sense. You’d have better luck appealing to people’s innate sense of altruism. BTW I use a 40 year old Fuller hair brush that is as good today as it was then (only a discoloration of the mock tortoise shell after many boilings. Bristles are intact and very comfortable.)

Joel:>> The only burden I’m “putting on women� is for them not to let some man have his way with her during a couple of days or so each month when she is ovulating, or about to, without using some sort of contraceptive or aborting the baby or practicing infanticide or whatever is her preference. I think any of these methods is preferable to spending a king’s ransom raising and protecting and educating that child for eighteen or so years and then wasting that whole effort by sending the kid off to war.

What can I say to this mindset? The rhythmic “couple of days� is nonsense it assumes that women are always aware when they are ovulating. Ovulation doesn’t always occur on the ides of menses, many are irregular, and it’s not unheard of for pregnancies to occur during menstruation. Many women are opposed to birth control for religious, cultural and personal reasons. This country of 0 population growth except due to immigration and certain ethnic groups is not the greatest population offender and one of the few countries which men face consequences for overly importunate sexual advances. We ARE a resource consuming, waste creating, and cultural imperialistic offender. I find your economics based preference to infanticide rather than to invest love, nurture, time and money in raising a child because (s)he might go to war horrifying and question the tenets of your morality. If children are properly raised they won’t go off to war. Even if they do (heaven forefend) go off to war there is no reason to assume that your efforts were in vain. They may return with attitudes that could prevent future wars, having witnessed the horror and stupidity of that approach determined to work for peace. If resources are your concern, it would be far better if families were nuclear (traditional) groups pooling resources (for the commonweal) rather than splintering into single and single parent family groupings which lead to duplication of resource allocation. Houses, energy, multiple cars, etc. requiring more hours at work to support a lifestyle which with mutual respect for each other and concern for child welfare over self fulfillment would go along way to assuage societal problems.

Potter: In regards to the moral position of any churches that claim birth control is a sin (immoral). As I put forth in the “Morality thread� as the 4th absolute moral tenet.

4) Do not commit violence on yourself, others, life, or the environment… I would consider overpopulation a violation of this “rule� vis a vis the environment. Overpopulation is unsustainable and is frequently balanced by such less than ideal measures such as genocide and disease and famine locally, wars and pandemics and natural disasters globally.

Peace to ALL – Jazzman