Vegetarianism

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 600
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Vegetarianism

Post by Count Lucanor » May 22nd, 2020, 9:59 pm

Greta wrote:I cannot disagree with this more strongly. There is no evidence in all of human history that humans are capable of creating the kind of sustainable socialist nirvanas that is your idyll. We could fit all the world's humans in Texas - as long as they are corpses.
I don't see what "sustainable socialist nirvanas", whatever those are, have to do with whether the overpopulation story is factual or just an ideological subject, but I can have hopes that at some time this will add to the evidence to support an argument.
Greta wrote: The planet is not just overpopulated but extremely so, and it is not racist to mention this.
There's more people now than ever, but this alone does not suffice to raise the alarm flag of overpopulation, a term which usually implies that there are more people than there should be, given the stress that they supposedly put on natural resources. This is false, as I said to Steve3007. Now, let's get into some nuances about what can be argued. The one thing that can and must be immediately dropped is that "there's little doubt" about overpopulation. There's more than doubt, actually tons of disagreement on the issue, not from delirious skeptics, but from reasonable people and organizations, and not particularly unorthodox. That's simply because the Malthusian ideology never really settled in academic thought, I guess. But it became a very popular ideology in political circles, both in the right and left of the spectrum, since Paul Ehrlich published his book in the late 60s and appeared on the Tonight Show.

The other thing to send to the myth shelve is that population is growing exponentially. Actually "...the world population growth rate has been declining since its peak in the early 1960s. Between 1950 and 2000, the world population grew at a rate of 1.76%. Between 2000 and 2050, it is expected to grow by 0.77 percent."

But more important than being racist or not, is the fact that this ideology tries to conflate the fact that humans do put stress on the environment with the fact of population growth, assuming demographics alone has a direct and equally distributed effect. But the truth is only a small percentage of the population, that living in highly developed countries, is the one causing harm. Numbers of people are not the problem, but the whole carbon footprint of the inefficient, unsustainable way of living of the few. It's not a population problem, but a profit and distribution problem of global capitalist economy. As stated in the article:

"In fact, the poorest half of the global population, some 3.5 billion people, are responsible for only around 10% of global emissions (while living overwhelmingly in the countries most vulnerable to climate change). The richest 10% of people in the world are responsible for around 50% of global emissions."
Greta wrote: With cities choking with fumes, traffic gridlocked, people struggling to compete to find work or even accommodation, how much more do you think we should populate? Maybe we could live in cages like the poor in Asia? We could fit lots more people. What of other species and ecosystems? They are disappearing worldwide, not just in "greedy" wealthy nations but we don't seem to care. Breed, breed, breed. Develop, develop, develop.

Nobody is willingly returning to subsistence lifestyles so we can cram another few billion on this overpopulated planet. To what end? We have already destroyed most natural systems.
That's the illusion that has been fed to, I guess, well-intentioned Westerners. But it's a lie:

"...the Western preoccupation with the overpopulation issue isn't just silly, it's hypocritical:

In fact, rising consumption today far outstrips the rising headcount as a threat to the planet. And most of the extra consumption has been in rich countries that have long since given up adding substantial numbers to their population, while most of the remaining population growth is in countries with a very small impact on the planet. By almost any measure you choose, a small proportion of the world’s people take the majority of the world’s resources and produce the majority of its pollution.

In other words, argues Pearce, focus on the population "problem" is essentially a matter of the rich "downplay[ing] the importance of our own environmental footprint because future generations of poor people might one day have the temerity to get as rich and destructive as us."

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 600
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Vegetarianism

Post by Count Lucanor » May 22nd, 2020, 10:45 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
May 22nd, 2020, 4:15 am
But there is no rational argument which leads from that fact to the conclusion that the problem of human population growth is a racist myth.
First of all, there's no "human population problem". There may be problems with growing human populations, but that's another issue.

Secondly, it may be argued that this myth is not exclusively fed by racism, and I would agree with that. It looks like Paul Ehrlich's book was inspired by some level of racism of which perhaps he was not well aware of, but that only tells about him. But it is indeed a typical prejudice from Western policy advisers against the poor countries.
Steve3007 wrote:
May 22nd, 2020, 4:15 am
If we wish to reduce the negative effects of human activity on the environment and on other species then the possible rational conclusions depend on how affluent we want the world in general to be.

1. We could bring the rest of the world up to the standards of affluence of the developed world by finding ways to be affluent without being "high-consuming". A vegetarian diet is one part of that solution. "Renewable" energy sources are another.
It is interesting to note how natural you find that some part of the world will bring the other up to their standards, implying where decisions are to be made. Secondly, the "standards of affluence" of the developed world are inherent to its standard of exploitation of resources and people, so why would the rest of the world should follow the bad example?
About renewable, I totally agree, but the biggest burden there lies on the developed world, not the less affluent.
Vegetarianism? Agriculture production rates have already increased in the last decades. Anyway, as I have stated before, some non-vegetarian food production like cattle farms may be inefficient, but overall, there are plenty of other sources that are not vegetarian and seem to work well. I would say a good balance within an omnivorous diet should be OK.
Steve3007 wrote:
May 22nd, 2020, 4:15 am
2. We could reduce the developed world's levels of affluence, while keeping the undeveloped world poor, and thereby reduce consumption. i.e. make everybody poor.
That's another myth of libertarian economists, either allow high inequality or get flat equal poverty.
Steve3007 wrote:
May 22nd, 2020, 4:15 am
3. We could dramatically reduce the overall world population and leave the relative levels of affluence, and the per-capita consumption, the same as they are now.
Without the need of Western countries imposing population control on others, the data indicates that population growth will stabilize by itself: Overpopulation – The Human Explosion Explained

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7328
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Vegetarianism

Post by Steve3007 » May 23rd, 2020, 6:02 am

Steve3007 wrote:If we wish to reduce the negative effects of human activity on the environment and on other species then the possible rational conclusions depend on how affluent we want the world in general to be.

1. We could bring the rest of the world up to the standards of affluence of the developed world by finding ways to be affluent without being "high-consuming". A vegetarian diet is one part of that solution. "Renewable" energy sources are another....

...I prefer 1. Preferably with a gradual, managed reduction in world population that is not so severe that it causes demographics problems. Of course, dictating this in a "if I ruled the world" style and proposing how it could actually be achieved in the absence of my own global dictatorial power are different things.
Count Lucanor wrote:It is interesting to note how natural you find that some part of the world will bring the other up to their standards, implying where decisions are to be made.
No such implication is present, as indicated by that last part.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 9084
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Vegetarianism

Post by Greta » May 23rd, 2020, 5:43 pm

Count Lucanor wrote:
May 22nd, 2020, 9:59 pm
The one thing that can and must be immediately dropped is that "there's little doubt" about overpopulation. There's more than doubt, actually tons of disagreement on the issue, not from delirious skeptics, but from reasonable people and organizations, and not particularly unorthodox.
"Delirious skeptics". Like David Attenborough and most of the world's naturalists? Those "reasonable" organisations all have one thing in common. They care not even a bit about nature or other species other than their "services", and even then they take a pathetically short-term view.

Do you find it acceptable that humans and the livestock of factory farms account for about 96% of mammal biomass?

Why would you want even more people on a planet whose natural systems have mostly been either destroyed or damaged?

Do you believe that humans beings can avoid behaving like human beings? That the most powerful will not abuse their positions and consume too much? Never in all of human history have the powerful eschewed the opportunity to drive home their advantages.

Terrific, let's breed more and wipe out ALL other wild animals. Who needs them, right? While we're at it, we can breed so much that we'll be able to strip the land of vegetation and create more deserts. Madness.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 600
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Vegetarianism

Post by Count Lucanor » May 24th, 2020, 6:33 pm

Greta wrote:
May 23rd, 2020, 5:43 pm
Count Lucanor wrote:
May 22nd, 2020, 9:59 pm
The one thing that can and must be immediately dropped is that "there's little doubt" about overpopulation. There's more than doubt, actually tons of disagreement on the issue, not from delirious skeptics, but from reasonable people and organizations, and not particularly unorthodox.
"Delirious skeptics". Like David Attenborough and most of the world's naturalists?
I think I did not make myself clear. Delirious skeptics are flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers, not overpopulation skeptics.
Greta wrote:
May 23rd, 2020, 5:43 pm
Those "reasonable" organisations all have one thing in common. They care not even a bit about nature or other species other than their "services", and even then they take a pathetically short-term view.
I don't know which particular organizations you're referring to, but I don't doubt there will be ones as you describe. As far as I know, the myth of overpopulation is peddled from left to right, fitting different agendas. Even Bernie Sanders peddled that view. But I think of Sierra Club, for example, a well-known environmental organization, that does not endorse the population control narrative:

Sierra Club -The Overpopulation Myth and its Dangerous Connotations
Greta wrote:
May 23rd, 2020, 5:43 pm
Do you find it acceptable that humans and the livestock of factory farms account for about 96% of mammal biomass?

Why would you want even more people on a planet whose natural systems have mostly been either destroyed or damaged?

Do you believe that humans beings can avoid behaving like human beings? That the most powerful will not abuse their positions and consume too much? Never in all of human history have the powerful eschewed the opportunity to drive home their advantages.

Terrific, let's breed more and wipe out ALL other wild animals. Who needs them, right? While we're at it, we can breed so much that we'll be able to strip the land of vegetation and create more deserts. Madness.
You're creating a false dilemma: either accept that there is overpopulation and it's the key factor in environmental damage or face the apocalyptic end of all life. The facts are that there's no overpopulation and it is not the key factor in environmental damage. If we're to face an apocalyptic end it will not be because of the pressure of population, but the pressure of unsustainable destructive capitalism, which ironically is led by the countries where the population control narrative is strongly advocated.

Rejecting the overpopulation myth does not imply that we stop seeking a sustainable future or rejecting the fact that human factors are behind the biggest negative impact on the environmental. The issue is to identify which type of human factor is actually responsible and which are the actual impacts. No one is saying keep the deforestation of the Amazon to clear land for cattle and agriculture, what's been said is that the Amazon's deforestation has to do with capitalist pressures, not with demographic ones. I've seen this happening in my own country: a vast tropical forest started being ravaged by farmers that migrated from other parts of the country, a practice that eventually opened the door as well to logging companies. It had nothing to do with demographic pressures, believe me, there was plenty of land where the new settlers came from. It was economic policies that decomposed the social and economic relations in the agricultural provinces that forced this people to move and settle in another part. A lot of them had ended in the cities to become the urban workforce, but others took to the forest to endeavor in the economic activity they knew well. And this is a process that repeats all over the world.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 9084
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Vegetarianism

Post by Greta » May 24th, 2020, 6:56 pm

Count Lucanor wrote:
May 24th, 2020, 6:33 pm
Greta wrote:
May 23rd, 2020, 5:43 pm
Do you find it acceptable that humans and the livestock of factory farms account for about 96% of mammal biomass?

Why would you want even more people on a planet whose natural systems have mostly been either destroyed or damaged?

Do you believe that humans beings can avoid behaving like human beings? That the most powerful will not abuse their positions and consume too much? Never in all of human history have the powerful eschewed the opportunity to drive home their advantages.

Terrific, let's breed more and wipe out ALL other wild animals. Who needs them, right? While we're at it, we can breed so much that we'll be able to strip the land of vegetation and create more deserts. Madness.
You're creating a false dilemma: either accept that there is overpopulation and it's the key factor in environmental damage or face the apocalyptic end of all life. The facts are that there's no overpopulation and it is not the key factor in environmental damage. If we're to face an apocalyptic end it will not be because of the pressure of population, but the pressure of unsustainable destructive capitalism, which ironically is led by the countries where the population control narrative is strongly advocated.

Rejecting the overpopulation myth does not imply that we stop seeking a sustainable future or rejecting the fact that human factors are behind the biggest negative impact on the environmental. The issue is to identify which type of human factor is actually responsible and which are the actual impacts. No one is saying keep the deforestation of the Amazon to clear land for cattle and agriculture, what's been said is that the Amazon's deforestation has to do with capitalist pressures, not with demographic ones. I've seen this happening in my own country: a vast tropical forest started being ravaged by farmers that migrated from other parts of the country, a practice that eventually opened the door as well to logging companies. It had nothing to do with demographic pressures, believe me, there was plenty of land where the new settlers came from. It was economic policies that decomposed the social and economic relations in the agricultural provinces that forced this people to move and settle in another part. A lot of them had ended in the cities to become the urban workforce, but others took to the forest to endeavor in the economic activity they knew well. And this is a process that repeats all over the world.
We either keep populating exponentially or devise a sustainable way of living. The two are utterly exclusive. By the way, earlier you claimed that population is not rising exponentially, which is a misconception by you. Population rise remains exponential - with over 55 mill births this year and 23 mill deaths, a ratio of over 2:1.

The fact is that population drives "capitalist pressures". There are so many people that they cannot be controlled, so illegal logging and poaching is rife in many developing countries - the ones with the greatest bounty, such as in the Amazon.

I agree that we could do better, and should have done better, but the history is there to see, as is the chest-thumping anti-environment politics seen in both in the west and in the east, pushing environmental protections for the sake "progress". In a world where humans did not behave like humans, perhaps a greater population would be possible, although probably not so much. Let's face it, about the only people living sustainably by global standards (that skew global statistics almost as much as billionaires) are those of impoverished lands. If they were as wealthy as the west, they would too be churning through natural resources at a great rate, creating much pollution.

Major events are going to happen, causing mass deaths. However, given the advances in technology, I find it hard to imagine a level of environmental degradation that would present a physical hazard to those who cause most the problems - the Trump, Putin, Xi, Koch and Murdoch clans and posses. (Aside from a supervolcano or asteroid strike). There is the rub.

So there's far too many people who, on average, are consuming far too much for sustainability.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 600
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Vegetarianism

Post by Count Lucanor » May 24th, 2020, 9:32 pm

Greta wrote:We either keep populating exponentially or devise a sustainable way of living. The two are utterly exclusive. By the way, earlier you claimed that population is not rising exponentially, which is a misconception by you. Population rise remains exponential - with over 55 mill births this year and 23 mill deaths, a ratio of over 2:1.
The actual data appears to show that the misconception comes from your part. Even looking at the UN report that has been questioned by so many demographers (it uses the mid variant, which has always proved inaccurate), population growth rates has been in decline and it is definitely not exponential:

"Currently, the world population continues to grow though more slowly than in the recent past. Ten years ago, world population was growing by 1.24 per cent per year. Today, it is growing by 1.18 per cent per year, or approximately an additional 83 million people annually." (Source: UN World Population Prospects, The 2015 Revision).

If you had watched the Kurzgesagt video that I posted to Steve3007, you would understand this more clearly:

Overpopulation - The Human Explosion Explained

And this short video explains what it is needed for population to grow exponentially, which of course it is not happening:
7 Billion People: Everybody Relax!

If not a fan of videos, this one article explains it in detail:

The Overpopulation Myth

"For a start, there is no exponential growth. In fact, population growth is slowing. For more than three decades now, the average number of babies being born to women in most of the world has been in decline. Globally, women today have half as many babies as their mothers did, mostly out of choice...

Here are the numbers. Forty years ago, the average woman had between five and six kids. Now she has 2.6. This is getting close to the replacement level which, allowing for girls who don’t make it to adulthood, is around 2.3. As I show in my new book, Peoplequake, half the world already has a fertility rate below the long-term replacement level. That includes all of Europe, much of the Caribbean and the far east from Japan to Vietnam and Thailand, Australia, Canada, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Algeria, Kazakhstan, and Tunisia.

It also includes China, where the state decides how many children couples can have..."

Greta wrote:The fact is that population drives "capitalist pressures".
Not at all. This is a myth of urbanization that was debunked by Manuel Castells in the early 80s.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 9084
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Vegetarianism

Post by Greta » May 25th, 2020, 1:20 am

Count Lucanor wrote:
May 24th, 2020, 9:32 pm
Greta wrote:We either keep populating exponentially or devise a sustainable way of living. The two are utterly exclusive. By the way, earlier you claimed that population is not rising exponentially, which is a misconception by you. Population rise remains exponential - with over 55 mill births this year and 23 mill deaths, a ratio of over 2:1.
The actual data appears to show that the misconception comes from your part. Even looking at the UN report that has been questioned by so many demographers (it uses the mid variant, which has always proved inaccurate), population growth rates has been in decline and it is definitely not exponential:

"Currently, the world population continues to grow though more slowly than in the recent past. Ten years ago, world population was growing by 1.24 per cent per year. Today, it is growing by 1.18 per cent per year, or approximately an additional 83 million people annually." (Source: UN World Population Prospects, The 2015 Revision).
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

You are comparing growth with previous years, not current growth. Remember, the larger the sample size, the greater the difference of small percentages.

The facts speak for themselves.

56 million people were born this year. 23.5 million died this years.

Growth is at a rate of over 2:1, which is exponential.

There FAR too many of us, because we are humans that behave like humans and no amount of ideology will change that in a hurry, especially as the impoverished resort to illegal clearing and poaching. As a result of billions of humans behaving like humans, the environments in ever more areas are being decimated, extinctions are happening at a saddening rate. Most large wild mammals are now endangered. The clearing continues at an ever greater pace.

Never mind, no policy is going to arise to change this, aside from increasing cuts to public health and welfare, which has been standard since the 1990s anyway. No, since we do not know how to curb our numbers, they will be culled the way they have always been culled in the Earth's history. We had a choice of curtailing population and resource use for a "soft landing" or continue as usual for a "hard landing". We have often for the latter and we shall reap what we sow. Or, rather, animals and the poor will reap what Tories worldwide have sown.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 1691
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Vegetarianism

Post by Sculptor1 » May 25th, 2020, 7:54 am

There is an equation which plots the biomass of grass, against the biomass of herbivores, and concludes that vegetarianism is better because there is a loss of calories should we chose to eat meat rather than vegetables.
I suggest that whilst this equation is no doubt true, the conclusion is weak.
There are a multitude of reasons why this is conclusion should not be taken at face value.
1) humans cannot eat grass.
2) many habitats are only suitable for grass as its primary vegetable production.
3) without a full nutrient cycle (that includes animals) soils get destroyed by intensive grain farming.
4) many areas of marginal land can support sheep and goats that would be impossible to produce other human food. Caprinae not only offer meat, but can be used to get milk and make cheese and butter. Additionally wool, angora, leather, can be produced as well as bone and hoves for fertiliser.
5) Vegetable farming is now wholly dependant on the chemical industry for fertilizer and requires yearly ploughing which is damaging to the environment. Pasture on the other hand can also provide habitats for a range of birds, insects and other animals that are utterly antithetical all forms of vegetable farming.
6) Pastures can be left to grow with no insecticides, and no herbicides. This is not the case with vegetable farming.
7) whilst there are cases where careful (alternative) methods of vegetable farming can adopt companion planting, and a range of other more econ-friendly systems; these are simply NOT efficient or cost effective, are in nor capable of competing in the market against vegetables made intensively with a range of chemical helpers.
8) Next time you visit your supermarket, take a look at where your asparagus, green beans, and other "fresh" vegetables come from. Out of season vegetables are the latest invisible environmental scandal. Air freighted veg accounts for a growing contribution to the diet of the rich and trendy countries who think little of eating Kenyan petit-pois, or Brazilian baby corn. Give me a bit of Welsh lamb, and try to tell me that calorie for calorie a Kenyan petit-pois is less harmful.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 600
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Vegetarianism

Post by Count Lucanor » May 25th, 2020, 12:27 pm

Greta wrote:
May 25th, 2020, 1:20 am
Count Lucanor wrote:
May 24th, 2020, 9:32 pm

The actual data appears to show that the misconception comes from your part. Even looking at the UN report that has been questioned by so many demographers (it uses the mid variant, which has always proved inaccurate), population growth rates has been in decline and it is definitely not exponential:

"Currently, the world population continues to grow though more slowly than in the recent past. Ten years ago, world population was growing by 1.24 per cent per year. Today, it is growing by 1.18 per cent per year, or approximately an additional 83 million people annually." (Source: UN World Population Prospects, The 2015 Revision).
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

You are comparing growth with previous years, not current growth. Remember, the larger the sample size, the greater the difference of small percentages.

The facts speak for themselves.

56 million people were born this year. 23.5 million died this years.

Growth is at a rate of over 2:1, which is exponential.
The facts are in and the only person in the world interpreting the growth rate as exponential seems to be you. All graphs, even of those fearing overpopulation, show a downward curve. I one wants to estimate future growth, one must look at the tendency, which is based not only on current growth, but on the growth of previous years. It's always a function of time and that is how you know if the rate is going up or down. This is also very well explained in the videos and articles, for whomever is interested in getting well informed. If you had cared to watch, you could have understood that for making it exponential, the number would have to double every time, but even the worst estimate by the UN puts the numbers of 2100 at 11 billion, which is not the number you'll get with exponential growth.

World Population by Year

Year| World Population| Yearly Change| Net Change
2020| 7,794,798,739| 1.05 %| 81,330,63952
2019| 7,713,468,100| 1.08 %| 82,377,06052
2018| 7,631,091,040| 1.10 %| 83,232,11551
2017| 7,547,858,925| 1.12 %| 83,836,87651

https://www.worldometers.info/world-pop ... n-by-year/

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 9084
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Vegetarianism

Post by Greta » May 25th, 2020, 4:06 pm

2:1 is exponential growth. Check the math. Twice as many born as dead becomes four times as many, and so forth.

1% does not seem much - until applied to gigantic numbers like 7.8 billion, where 1% population growth has proved catastrophic.

You cannot rewrite history. We humans - with our massive numbers - have decimated the natural world, and continue to do so apace. No amount of spin can change that.

Mother nature will make the correction because we refuse to realistically face the problem. The moment a nation's numbers threaten to fall into decline there is worry rather than celebration. We have not ever taken the problem of overpopulation seriously. Instead we take the problems caused by overpopulation very seriously, while remaining in denial about the source of those issues.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 600
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Vegetarianism

Post by Count Lucanor » May 25th, 2020, 5:48 pm

Greta wrote:
May 25th, 2020, 4:06 pm
2:1 is exponential growth. Check the math. Twice as many born as dead becomes four times as many, and so forth.
No, you're applying the wrong math in the wrong place. You're calculating the rate of deaths vs newborns, but that is not how population growth is calculated. Growth is calculated taking the current population and seeing how many are added the next year.
Greta wrote:
May 25th, 2020, 4:06 pm
1% does not seem much - until applied to gigantic numbers like 7.8 billion, where 1% population growth has proved catastrophic.
It is neither too much or too little until one defines the criteria to make the comparison. So far, nothing related to the amount of people have been shown to be catastrophic.
Greta wrote:
May 25th, 2020, 4:06 pm
You cannot rewrite history. We humans - with our massive numbers - have decimated the natural world, and continue to do so apace. No amount of spin can change that.
Humans have impacted the natural world, not by growing populations, but by growing economic activities of private companies that use exploitation methods that put a lot of stress on the environment and produce externalities. You cannot rewrite the history of capitalism and blame it all on people.
Greta wrote:
May 25th, 2020, 4:06 pm
We have not ever taken the problem of overpopulation seriously.
There's no overpopulation problem, and while this false alarm is raised, we get distracted and lose focus of the real cause of problems for the environment: unsustainable destructive capitalism. The facts are indisputable.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 9084
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Vegetarianism

Post by Greta » May 26th, 2020, 1:33 am

You have ignored all of my input and persisted with your discredited views.

As an old progressive myself, it pains me to say that your attitude illustrates the lack of reason in parts of the left, being almost as unreasonable as the fringe right. I expect you would have been in favour of Europe having open borders to allow all of the Middle Eastern refugees in too. Never mind the locals, they'd had it good for long enough, right? Now it's time to share, yes? Always willing to share other people's stuff. Or "saints" who expect everyone else to live up their unrealistic standards.

How do you solve "destructive capitalism" when "DC" controls all of the banks, major institutions and organisations, the military, almost all of the mainstream print, online and televised media? Are you planning a revolution? Good luck pitting yourself against drones and tanks.

You can blame corporations all you like, but humans have never, ever maintained a just and equitable society. Not in all of history or, I presume, in prehistory. Do you understand this??????? Why do you assume that it could change in time to fix population problems?

The fact is that we "civilised" humans have always tended to consume far more than we needed. That's standard. We have always had inequitable societies where the strong prey on the weak. And we have long been breeding at an unbelievable rate, so we now provide small cages for those whom cannot gain a home.

What do you suggest? Knocking down billionaires' estates and erecting huge apartment towers in their stead to house the impoverished and dispossessed?

The problems of extinctions, the climate change, ecosystem loss, pandemics, pollution, overcrowding, people cages, traffic jams, long queues, unemployment, homelessness and "thank you for calling, your call is important to us ..." would not be nearly as problematic without an unsustainable population that is decimating the natural world.

The trouble with sociology majors is that they ignore science and, especially, biology. For instance, how does human overpopulation differ from the overpopulation of other species? We are doing exactly the same thing, stripping away resources and biodiversity, with a birth to death rate that is still 2:1 (exponential). Should overpopulating jellyfish, clearing out oceans near Japan, blame their biggest and fattest brethren or the fact that the ocean is completely full of them in places - just as the most habitable lands are all full of humans and their stuff.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 600
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Vegetarianism

Post by Count Lucanor » May 26th, 2020, 1:12 pm

Greta wrote:
May 26th, 2020, 1:33 am
You have ignored all of my input and persisted with your discredited views.
Your inputs in this topic have been your personal opinions and the denial of the data, even the data of the only source you have provided:

https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth

"Two centuries of rapid global population growth will come to an end

One of the big lessons from the demographic history of countries is that population explosions are temporary. For many countries the demographic transition has already ended, and as the global fertility rate has now halved we know that the world as a whole is approaching the end of rapid population growth."

"Peak population growth was reached in 1968 with an annual growth of 2.1%. Since then the increase of the world population has slowed and today grows by just over 1% per year. This slowdown of population growth was not only predictable, but predicted. "

"As population growth continues to decline, the curve representing the world population is getting less and less steep. By the end of the century – when global population growth will have fallen to 0.1% according to the UN’s projection – the world will be very close to the end of the demographic transition."

"The chart shows that global population growth reached a peak in 1962 and 1963 with an annual growth rate of 2.2%; but since then, world population growth has halved.

For the last half-century we have lived in a world in which the population growth rate has been declining. The UN projects that this decline will continue in the coming decades.

A common question we’re asked is: is the global population growing exponentially? The answer is no. For population growth to be exponential, the growth rate would have be the same over time (e.g. 2% growth every year). In absolute terms, this would result in an exponential increase in the number of people. That’s because we’d be multiplying an ever-larger number of people by the same 2%. 2% of the population this year would be larger than 2% last year, and so on; this means the population would grow exponentially.

But, as we see in this chart, since the 1960s the growth rate has been falling. This means the world population is not growing exponentially – for decades now, growth has been more similar to a linear trend.

Greta wrote:
May 26th, 2020, 1:33 am
As an old progressive myself, it pains me to say that your attitude illustrates the lack of reason in parts of the left, being almost as unreasonable as the fringe right.
This is completely Ad Hominem. Let's care about the actual data (see all of the above) and let's see who behaves reasonably around it.
Greta wrote:
May 26th, 2020, 1:33 am
I expect you would have been in favour of Europe having open borders to allow all of the Middle Eastern refugees in too. Never mind the locals, they'd had it good for long enough, right? Now it's time to share, yes? Always willing to share other people's stuff. Or "saints" who expect everyone else to live up their unrealistic standards.
I have never addressed this migration issue, so don't put words in my mouth or ideas in my mind. Maybe you need to frame me into some stereotypical political tribe, but I don't need that myself.
Greta wrote:
May 26th, 2020, 1:33 am
How do you solve "destructive capitalism" when "DC" controls all of the banks, major institutions and organisations, the military, almost all of the mainstream print, online and televised media? Are you planning a revolution? Good luck pitting yourself against drones and tanks.
Well, there you have it: capitalism is eternal as the Roman Empire, so we can also forget about sustainable ways of living. Actually, anyway, the point is not about wiping out capitalism, but surpassing it, evolving to something better. But you have made a very good point: drones, tanks, military occupation, surveillance, that's exactly what resistance means and that's why military forces and alliances exist, for nothing else. We can add population control policies.
Greta wrote:
May 26th, 2020, 1:33 am
You can blame corporations all you like, but humans have never, ever maintained a just and equitable society. Not in all of history or, I presume, in prehistory. Do you understand this??????? Why do you assume that it could change in time to fix population problems?
But the data and the experts agree there's no overpopulation problem. Period.
Greta wrote:
May 26th, 2020, 1:33 am
The fact is that we "civilised" humans have always tended to consume far more than we needed.
That's your opinion, quite disputable with the facts, but still a respectable opinion.
Greta wrote:
May 26th, 2020, 1:33 am
We have always had inequitable societies where the strong prey on the weak. And we have long been breeding at an unbelievable rate, so we now provide small cages for those whom cannot gain a home.
Inequitable societies, indeed. Breeding at an unbelievable rate? Absolutely not. Look at the data, population started to peak only in the 1800s because of better living conditions inaugurated by the industrial capitalist revolution, a model that has become unsustainable.
Greta wrote:
May 26th, 2020, 1:33 am
What do you suggest? Knocking down billionaires' estates and erecting huge apartment towers in their stead to house the impoverished and dispossessed?
We could start just getting a bit of democracy. And we could also at least gain a little consciousness of which are the forces fighting ferociously to stop any real change, which implies dismantling all the ideologies that show up to legitimize it as "natural", unavoidable and eternal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMRowgD0ZZs

And of course, its overpopulation narrative, too.
Greta wrote:
May 26th, 2020, 1:33 am
The trouble with sociology majors is that they ignore science and, especially, biology.
Aha! The ideology I was just talking about.
Greta wrote:
May 26th, 2020, 1:33 am
For instance, how does human overpopulation differ from the overpopulation of other species?
First, there's no overpopulation. Secondly, humans are not just another species purely determined by natural forces.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 9084
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Vegetarianism

Post by Greta » May 26th, 2020, 6:14 pm

Count, while human "experts" claim that human overpopulation is no problem, the almost complete annihilation of other large animals says otherwise. Did you know that humans and their stock make up 96% of all mammal biomass? Do you find that acceptable? Birds are struggling too. Repiles, amphibians, insects.

The increasing desertification of many lands also makes clear that we have overpopulated. The heating atmosphere, the dying corals too. You say that I just give opinions - these events are not opinions but unfolding tragedies that too many human-obsessed humans do not care about. Most major problems we have today would be vastly improved with many fewer people.

Trouble is, you ignore the elephant in the room - that we are already overpopulated and have been so for a long time. Population growth is not as rapid as before - but still occurring at a rate of 2:1. That is still leading to disaster. We have been unsustainable for some time.

Now you, as a champion of the poor and downtrodden should appreciate that "disaster" does not refer to the fates of Koch, Trump, Putin, Xi, Murdoch and other architects of environmental destruction. No, the first to suffer and die are wild animals. Then comes the poor. The poor are suffering more than any from overpopulation, while the wealthiest remain insulated.

In summary, there are far too many of us and we are too wasteful. Both are so obviously issues that it should not be necessary to spell it out on a forum like this. To speak of overpopulation is not to ignore wasteful consumption as you seem to assume. Neither issue can be solved by policy either, due to powerful vested interests (as per the above list).

BTW, you break posts up into small chunks and address each out of context, as if they were unrelated to, and untempered by, preceding or succeeding statements. This leads you to fail to properly address points being made and you end up in long arguments that appear to be largely based on misconceptions. For clarity's sake it is better to write here like a writer than a Twitterer.

Post Reply