Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Sy Borg]

As the world's population passed eight billion I have never known such hatred for other humans as today.

It makes sense. The more people there are, the more people get in each others' way, and more irritated people become. For many, any attempt to gain work, housing or even to book holidays has become far more of logistical exercise than it was with smaller populaces, or a futile one.

A major concern I have about all this is that population apologists - those who care absolutely nothing for the animals and plants our growing numbers destroy - tend to blame the world's problems on inequality and misanthropy. They ignore the fact that inequality and misanthropy are direct results of overpopulation, as evidenced by our history.

Another issue over overpopulation is the devaluing of individuality. Simply, individuals don't matter unless they are VIPs. Of course, individuals have always been trumped by blocs and groups, but never more so than today. Now authoritarian governments like China and Russia are reverting to totalitarianism, and ostensibly democratic governments are becoming more authoritarian. As populations rise and governments struggle to maintain order, they will increasingly use the simple and easy methods of coercion and manipulation - prison, "disappearances", trumped up charges against political enemies, and possibly assassinations.

As people's living conditions become more crowded, along with the erosion of online privacy, the idea of privacy is dying, even seen as dodgy and selfish. Once we had outgrown "There's no problem if you have nothing to hide" (if one has nothing to hide, why don't they leave the bathroom door open when they poop?). Now that old, disproved line returns - the line of authoritarians.

In the meantime, extinction rates are rising rapidly. However, apologists don't care. To them, one human life is worth that of a million animals.

There we see a kind of fundamentalist attitude to population, where any mention of overpopulation brings accusations of Malthusianism, of racism and misanthropy. Each is an obvious lie and misrepresentation but it doesn't stop apologists from relying heavily on such dishonest and manipulative ad hominems. To most population apologists, the problem is entirely the fault of inequality, generally caused by rich white males. If only we could get rid of them, the "logic" goes, everything would be better - as if inequality has ever been successfully combated on a mass scale.

That humans have dramatically overpopulated is unquestionable. Every possible sign of overpopulation is present:

extinctions / loss of biodiversity
deforestation / loss of habitats
loss of fresh drinking water
loss of arable land
overcrowding
increasing homelessness
more air pollution
more water pollution
more soil pollution
more noise pollution
more light pollution
atmospheric change / global warming.

The future will bring us more and deadlier wars, more diseases/pandemics, more starvation, more hatred.

There appears to be absolutely nothing that can be done about his because the nations with the highest birth rates are not going to change any time soon. This dynamic will certainly play out to the point of death, sickness and suffering beyond anything since the Black Plague.

The only things that can be done to alleviate this is to focus healthcare on younger people, to allow the very old and sick to die with dignity. Another is to educate young women in developing countries but these countries are now leaning into China. Do you think they would bother educating young African and Middle Eastern women? I'm thinking the only education they would be given would be to learn to love and obey the CCP, but maybe I'm underestimating them.

Ultimately, overpopulation and its effects are locked in. Upcoming disasters are locked in. As these disasters play out more - wars, fires, floods, sinkholes, landslides and extreme temperatures - one can expect and increasing impact on the psyches of survivors. No doubt there will be intense apportionment of blame, with claims and counter claims. There will be more fear, worry, hostility, anger and frustration.

How can people adapt philosophically to all of this? As they say, it's less about what happens but our reaction to it. I'm thinking that the recent in interest in stoicism is a response to the problems. It's pretty obvious how that can be helpful. Some have faith that AI will have the answers. Like any faith, it's contestable but perhaps brings more peace to one's life.

Are there other suggestions as to how to psychologically deal with these wicked problems?

[Sea Turtle]

You seek to discuss how to deal with this situation, not about the situation itself or solutions to the situation.

Its a wide and deep topic.

I hold several competing viewpoints on this. My final analysis on the best way is still a work in progress.

so..

Accept what we are and agree with self to be at peace with that. Do not dream to be something else.

Said differently; accept what we are and forgive our-self for not being what we think we should be. This involves understanding hate.

When we do that our position within the mess becomes ok. The mess is just as it should be, we are just as we should be within it. It takes some real work to dismiss what others, past, present, and future would like us to believe. As we accept AND become happy with what we are the viewpoints will change.

--
Your right, overpopulation is the root of much struggles. The roots of overpopulation then would be interesting. We will never make progress on that as it gets into honesty that many would not accept. Humans are designed to overpopulate.

Abstract
In John B. Calhoun’s early crowding experiments, rats were
supplied with everything they needed – except space. The result
was a population boom, followed by such severe psychological
disruption that the animals died off to extinction. The take-home
message was that crowding resulted in pathological behaviour –
in rats and by extension in humans. For those pessimistic about
Earth’s “carrying capacity,” the macabre spectacle of this
“behavioural sink” was a compelling symbol of the problems
awaiting overpopulation. Calhoun’s work enjoyed considerable
popular success. But cultural influence can run both ways. In this
paper, we look at how the cultural impact of Calhoun’s
experiments resulted in a simplified, popular version of his work
coming to overshadow the more nuanced and positive message
he wanted to spread, and how his professional reputation was
affected by this popular “success.”

[JackDaydream]

As the world's population passed eight billion I have never known such hatred for other humans as today.

It makes sense. The more people there are, the more people get in each others' way, and more irritated people become. For many, any attempt to gain work, housing or even to book holidays has become far more of logistical exercise than it was with smaller populaces, or a futile one.

A major concern I have about all this is that population apologists - those who care absolutely nothing for the animals and plants our growing numbers destroy - tend to blame the world's problems on inequality and misanthropy. They ignore the fact that inequality and misanthropy are direct results of overpopulation, as evidenced by our history.

Another issue over overpopulation is the devaluing of individuality. Simply, individuals don't matter unless they are VIPs. Of course, individuals have always been trumped by blocs and groups, but never more so than today. Now authoritarian governments like China and Russia are reverting to totalitarianism, and ostensibly democratic governments are becoming more authoritarian. As populations rise and governments struggle to maintain order, they will increasingly use the simple and easy methods of coercion and manipulation - prison, "disappearances", trumped up charges against political enemies, and possibly assassinations.

As people's living conditions become more crowded, along with the erosion of online privacy, the idea of privacy is dying, even seen as dodgy and selfish. Once we had outgrown "There's no problem if you have nothing to hide" (if one has nothing to hide, why don't they leave the bathroom door open when they poop?). Now that old, disproved line returns - the line of authoritarians.

In the meantime, extinction rates are rising rapidly. However, apologists don't care. To them, one human life is worth that of a million animals.

There we see a kind of fundamentalist attitude to population, where any mention of overpopulation brings accusations of Malthusianism, of racism and misanthropy. Each is an obvious lie and misrepresentation but it doesn't stop apologists from relying heavily on such dishonest and manipulative ad hominems. To most population apologists, the problem is entirely the fault of inequality, generally caused by rich white males. If only we could get rid of them, the "logic" goes, everything would be better - as if inequality has ever been successfully combated on a mass scale.

That humans have dramatically overpopulated is unquestionable. Every possible sign of overpopulation is present:

extinctions / loss of biodiversity
deforestation / loss of habitats
loss of fresh drinking water
loss of arable land
overcrowding
increasing homelessness
more air pollution
more water pollution
more soil pollution
more noise pollution
more light pollution
atmospheric change / global warming.

The future will bring us more and deadlier wars, more diseases/pandemics, more starvation, more hatred.

There appears to be absolutely nothing that can be done about his because the nations with the highest birth rates are not going to change any time soon. This dynamic will certainly play out to the point of death, sickness and suffering beyond anything since the Black Plague.

The only things that can be done to alleviate this is to focus healthcare on younger people, to allow the very old and sick to die with dignity. Another is to educate young women in developing countries but these countries are now leaning into China. Do you think they would bother educating young African and Middle Eastern women? I'm thinking the only education they would be given would be to learn to love and obey the CCP, but maybe I'm underestimating them.

Ultimately, overpopulation and its effects are locked in. Upcoming disasters are locked in. As these disasters play out more - wars, fires, floods, sinkholes, landslides and extreme temperatures - one can expect and increasing impact on the psyches of survivors. No doubt there will be intense apportionment of blame, with claims and counter claims. There will be more fear, worry, hostility, anger and frustration.

How can people adapt philosophically to all of this? As they say, it's less about what happens but our reaction to it. I'm thinking that the recent in interest in stoicism is a response to the problems. It's pretty obvious how that can be helpful. Some have faith that AI will have the answers. Like any faith, it's contestable but perhaps brings more peace to one's life.

Are there other suggestions as to how to psychologically deal with these wicked problems?

One of the key aspect of problems caused by overpopulation is the way it leads to mass consumerism. In daily life, it means that so many people have needs to be met, especially the physiological ones, such as food and shelter

However, it may give rise to so many problems in the human psyche, especially in terms of human worth and of other life forms. Humans and other forms of life may be viewed as commodities, rather than understood and appreciated in their intrinsic worth. In the jungle of the mass, the individual aspects may be lost and depreciated. In this way, the entire philosophy of individualism of liberal democracy may be open to question, in addition to overpopulation throwing the nature of ecology and the competing needs of human and other forms of life nto question. Humans and other aspects of life may be seen as having diminished worth in the spectrum of the needs and concerns of the mass, including the competing aspects of ethics.

[Sy Borg]

You seek to discuss how to deal with this situation, not about the situation itself or solutions to the situation.

Its a wide and deep topic.

I hold several competing viewpoints on this. My final analysis on the best way is still a work in progress.

so..

Accept what we are and agree with self to be at peace with that. Do not dream to be something else.

Said differently; accept what we are and forgive our-self for not being what we think we should be. This involves understanding hate.

When we do that our position within the mess becomes ok. The mess is just as it should be, we are just as we should be within it. It takes some real work to dismiss what others, past, present, and future would like us to believe. As we accept AND become happy with what we are the viewpoints will change.

--
Your right, overpopulation is the root of much struggles. The roots of overpopulation then would be interesting. We will never make progress on that as it gets into honesty that many would not accept. Humans are designed to overpopulate.

Abstract
In John B. Calhoun’s early crowding experiments, rats were
supplied with everything they needed – except space. The result
was a population boom, followed by such severe psychological
disruption that the animals died off to extinction. The take-home
message was that crowding resulted in pathological behaviour –
in rats and by extension in humans. For those pessimistic about
Earth’s “carrying capacity,” the macabre spectacle of this
“behavioural sink” was a compelling symbol of the problems
awaiting overpopulation. Calhoun’s work enjoyed considerable
popular success. But cultural influence can run both ways. In this
paper, we look at how the cultural impact of Calhoun’s
experiments resulted in a simplified, popular version of his work
coming to overshadow the more nuanced and positive message
he wanted to spread, and how his professional reputation was
affected by this popular “success.”

I wouldn't technically say humans were "designed" to overpopulate but I take your point, and it's an important one. Humans are remarkably overpowered in the modern meta. I also relate to having "several viewpoints on this". The Earth exuded a simian capable of recalling the past and thinking ahead, an advantage as great as good eyesight was for trilobites living in what had previously been a Mr Magoo world.

There have been some interesting tests on rats and sociability. One involved offering rats two portions of water - one straight and the other laced with an opiate. To cut a long story short, if rats were alone and bored in a cage they opted for the drugged water and if they were in an enclosure with other rats and toys, they drank the clean water.

That leads us to an interesting situation. It's as if we have so overpopulated that we cannot readily socialise as we once did. Metaphorically, the situation can be akin to seeing a friend on the other side of a crowded bar, but there's so many people in the way that it's almost impossible to get to them. When I travelled to London about a decade ago I was shocked at how crowded the bars were. It was literally impossible to go to the bar and buy drinks, so a worker had the squeeze through the room taking orders. Going to the toilet was a shockingly difficult operation.

As populations grow, people will become more indoorsy. Going out into traffic, smog, noise and crowds will be ever less inviting. With improvements in home entertainment and deliveries, people will increasingly only go out when necessary.

[Sy Borg]

One of the key aspect of problems caused by overpopulation is the way it leads to mass consumerism. In daily life, it means that so many people have needs to be met, especially the physiological ones, such as food and shelter

However, it may give rise to so many problems in the human psyche, especially in terms of human worth and of other life forms. Humans and other forms of life may be viewed as commodities, rather than understood and appreciated in their intrinsic worth. In the jungle of the mass, the individual aspects may be lost and depreciated. In this way, the entire philosophy of individualism of liberal democracy may be open to question, in addition to overpopulation throwing the nature of ecology and the competing needs of human and other forms of life nto question. Humans and other aspects of life may be seen as having diminished worth in the spectrum of the needs and concerns of the mass, including the competing aspects of ethics.

Yes, we are seeing all of this. The demand gives rise to commercial behemoths, powerful enough to influence government policies in their favour, as opposed to being in favour of the populace.

Democracy is looking cooked by this dynamic. Machines will take more work, with ever more people on UBI, paid in controllable digital currency. So, it's not just authoritarianism on the rise, but actual totalitarianism. Many observers avoid using the T-word to describe modern China and Russia but they have now moved to totalitarianism. Even the slightest criticism of government policy results in a long prison term or "disappearance".

Whatever, even without governments trying to find ways of keeping huge populations from becoming too chaotic, overpopulation naturally destroys freedom and privacy anyway.

[Pattern-chaser]

How do we deal with current crises? I can only think of one thing — to strive for honesty, to ourselves and each other. Our biggest problem — eco-collapse — is not being considered because we don't want to give up the greedy 'consumptive' lives we lead. We are 'in denial'.

Perhaps our next-biggest problem is Vladimir Putin, and our situation is similar. Because he has nuclear weapons, and seems mad enough to use them, we are unwilling to confront him directly. We aren't in denial, exactly, but the situation is that we have a problem we are unable to adequately address, which is similar.

The trouble is, we are unlikely to do the 'obvious' thing(s) to solve our problems. We are unlikely to be honest with anyone, most of all ourselves. So we know what we *can* do, but we *will* not do it. A seemingly insoluble problem?

[Sy Borg]

How do we deal with current crises? I can only think of one thing — to strive for honesty, to ourselves and each other. Our biggest problem — eco-collapse — is not being considered because we don't want to give up the greedy 'consumptive' lives we lead. We are 'in denial'.

Perhaps our next-biggest problem is Vladimir Putin, and our situation is similar. Because he has nuclear weapons, and seems mad enough to use them, we are unwilling to confront him directly. We aren't in denial, exactly, but the situation is that we have a problem we are unable to adequately address, which is similar.

The trouble is, we are unlikely to do the 'obvious' thing(s) to solve our problems. We are unlikely to be honest with anyone, most of all ourselves. So we know what we *can* do, but we *will* not do it. A seemingly insoluble problem? 🤔🤔🤔

Do we lead such "reedy, consumptive lives"?

It's often pointed out that the west uses much more energy than developing countries. What's not pointed out is why developing countries' energy use is so low. a western prison might use between 30,000 and 40,000 kWh in a month. Meanwhile, Maseru Central Prison in Lesotho uses zero electricity on inmates. They live in sheds or a yard and there are almost no facilities. There are many deaths and rapes. Food is cooked over wood stoves. In fact, only 47% of Lesotho has access to electricity.

So, if we "greedy" westerners are to make sacrifices, what would the lifestyle of responsible westerners in a sustainable world look like? Should we be living in mud huts without electricity? Should we have two or more families per house?

[Sea Turtle]

Social engineers will need to honestly... understand what drives humans. Marketing firms know this information very well, often it goes against politically correctness.

Problem is solved by the following.

1. Status & prestige is increased when consumption is reduced.
2. Artificial population control. Do not wait for natural forces to do it.

[Pattern-chaser]

So, if we "greedy" westerners are to make sacrifices, what would the lifestyle of responsible westerners in a sustainable world look like? Should we be living in mud huts without electricity? Should we have two or more families per house?

When moderation is recommended, those who would disagree complain that you are mandating abstinence. It looks like you're doing that here?

I intended to refer to greedy humans, to all of us, across the whole planet and throughout our species' history. We have consumed, and continue to *increase* our consumption, of just about everything. We consume 'natural resources'; we consume the land itself (removing and destroying the life currently occupying that land); we consume that which grows on or in the land; we consume energy in vast quantities; and so on. Consumption.

So no, there is no need (I hope) for us to move into mud huts, but there is an over-riding need for us to moderate our consumption, and to start reducing the amount by which that consumption continues to *increase*. When we've crossed that first line, we need to start reducing our 'footprint', to a point where it (our consumption) becomes sustainable. A major part of this must surely be degrowth, the opposite of continuous-growth economics (which was a laughable folly, even before things started to run out).

[Pattern-chaser]

Social engineers will need to honestly... understand what drives humans. Marketing firms know this information very well, often it goes against politically correctness.

Problem is solved by the following.

1. Status & prestige is increased when consumption is reduced.
2. Artificial population control. Do not wait for natural forces to do it.

I'd love to see point 1 introduced successfully. Point 2 will be controversial, I fear...

[LuckyR]

How do we deal with current crises? I can only think of one thing — to strive for honesty, to ourselves and each other. Our biggest problem — eco-collapse — is not being considered because we don't want to give up the greedy 'consumptive' lives we lead. We are 'in denial'.

Perhaps our next-biggest problem is Vladimir Putin, and our situation is similar. Because he has nuclear weapons, and seems mad enough to use them, we are unwilling to confront him directly. We aren't in denial, exactly, but the situation is that we have a problem we are unable to adequately address, which is similar.

The trouble is, we are unlikely to do the 'obvious' thing(s) to solve our problems. We are unlikely to be honest with anyone, most of all ourselves. So we know what we *can* do, but we *will* not do it. A seemingly insoluble problem?

Do we lead such "reedy, consumptive lives"?

It's often pointed out that the west uses much more energy than developing countries. What's not pointed out is why developing countries' energy use is so low. a western prison might use between 30,000 and 40,000 kWh in a month. Meanwhile, Maseru Central Prison in Lesotho uses zero electricity on inmates. They live in sheds or a yard and there are almost no facilities. There are many deaths and rapes. Food is cooked over wood stoves. In fact, only 47% of Lesotho has access to electricity.

So, if we "greedy" westerners are to make sacrifices, what would the lifestyle of responsible westerners in a sustainable world look like? Should we be living in mud huts without electricity? Should we have two or more families per house?

Well specifically on the subject of overpopulation, the West is reproducing at below replacement levels.

Worldwide, the population is set to peak between 2050 and 2100 then drop precipitously.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... he-better/

[Sy Borg]

How do we deal with current crises? I can only think of one thing — to strive for honesty, to ourselves and each other. Our biggest problem — eco-collapse — is not being considered because we don't want to give up the greedy 'consumptive' lives we lead. We are 'in denial'.

Perhaps our next-biggest problem is Vladimir Putin, and our situation is similar. Because he has nuclear weapons, and seems mad enough to use them, we are unwilling to confront him directly. We aren't in denial, exactly, but the situation is that we have a problem we are unable to adequately address, which is similar.

The trouble is, we are unlikely to do the 'obvious' thing(s) to solve our problems. We are unlikely to be honest with anyone, most of all ourselves. So we know what we *can* do, but we *will* not do it. A seemingly insoluble problem? 🤔🤔🤔

Do we lead such "reedy, consumptive lives"?

It's often pointed out that the west uses much more energy than developing countries. What's not pointed out is why developing countries' energy use is so low. a western prison might use between 30,000 and 40,000 kWh in a month. Meanwhile, Maseru Central Prison in Lesotho uses zero electricity on inmates. They live in sheds or a yard and there are almost no facilities. There are many deaths and rapes. Food is cooked over wood stoves. In fact, only 47% of Lesotho has access to electricity.

So, if we "greedy" westerners are to make sacrifices, what would the lifestyle of responsible westerners in a sustainable world look like? Should we be living in mud huts without electricity? Should we have two or more families per house?

Well specifically on the subject of overpopulation, the West is reproducing at below replacement levels.

Worldwide, the population is set to peak between 2050 and 2100 then drop precipitously.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... he-better/

Well, if you overpopulate by enough, you guarantee a hard landing. This could have been alleviated but "population control" is thought of like "pest control" whereas it's actually a matter of "sustainability control" - or, as the case may be - a lack of sustainability control.

I think there will be some fatal events in the next few of decades that will astonish the world. No one will be able to imagine so many people dying in such a short time.

The problem is less the deaths but the suffering that precedes and surrounds it.

[Sea Turtle]

How do we deal with current crises? I can only think of one thing — to strive for honesty, to ourselves and each other. Our biggest problem — eco-collapse — is not being considered because we don't want to give up the greedy 'consumptive' lives we lead. We are 'in denial'.

Perhaps our next-biggest problem is Vladimir Putin, and our situation is similar. Because he has nuclear weapons, and seems mad enough to use them, we are unwilling to confront him directly. We aren't in denial, exactly, but the situation is that we have a problem we are unable to adequately address, which is similar.

The trouble is, we are unlikely to do the 'obvious' thing(s) to solve our problems. We are unlikely to be honest with anyone, most of all ourselves. So we know what we *can* do, but we *will* not do it. A seemingly insoluble problem?

Do we lead such "reedy, consumptive lives"?

It's often pointed out that the west uses much more energy than developing countries. What's not pointed out is why developing countries' energy use is so low. a western prison might use between 30,000 and 40,000 kWh in a month. Meanwhile, Maseru Central Prison in Lesotho uses zero electricity on inmates. They live in sheds or a yard and there are almost no facilities. There are many deaths and rapes. Food is cooked over wood stoves. In fact, only 47% of Lesotho has access to electricity.

So, if we "greedy" westerners are to make sacrifices, what would the lifestyle of responsible westerners in a sustainable world look like? Should we be living in mud huts without electricity? Should we have two or more families per house?

Well specifically on the subject of overpopulation, the West is reproducing at below replacement levels.

Worldwide, the population is set to peak between 2050 and 2100 then drop precipitously.

Interesting article(I removed the link to post). Several of the annoying points in it, are logical...

Is it possible to do what is suggested, redefine prosperity ? To the point that natural selection would favor responsible stewards.

Or we can heed the warning signs of a planet pushed to its limits, put the brakes on environmental catastrophe, and choose a different way to define prosperity that’s grounded in equity and a thriving natural world.

Or do we simply remove the desire to be selected?

Lower fertility rates also typically signal an increase in gender equality.

[Sy Borg]

Social engineers will need to honestly... understand what drives humans. Marketing firms know this information very well, often it goes against politically correctness.

Problem is solved by the following.

1. Status & prestige is increased when consumption is reduced.
2. Artificial population control. Do not wait for natural forces to do it.

Aside from the logistics in undergoing each item, I would see them as alleviators rather than solutions. With eight billion, the hard landing is locked in. It's just a matter of how and when it plays out.

[Pattern-chaser]

Well specifically on the subject of overpopulation, the West is reproducing at below replacement levels.

Worldwide, the population is set to peak between 2050 and 2100 then drop precipitously.

Interesting that the overpopulation discussion should agree (in general terms) with the predictions of those who fear the consequences of eco-collapse...