The Adverse Impact of World Expansion of Population (WEP)

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
Pleb
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: June 26th, 2020, 7:35 pm

Re: The Adverse Impact of World Expansion of Population (WEP)

Post by Pleb » June 30th, 2020, 3:33 am

Sculptor1 wrote:
June 29th, 2020, 11:06 am
gad-fly wrote:
June 29th, 2020, 9:45 am


A fruitful discussion should begin with identification. WEP Impact on what? Say there are five subjects A to E. It would be meaningless to say Adverse before focusing how and on which. The adverse effect may be marginal if the degree is acceptable on A and balanced by derived benefit on B. It would be transitional if reasonable recovery from the adverse effect can be made afterwards.
Is this all a way of avoiding answering my question?
Can you think of ANY area where the impact of WEP is not adverse? Can you think of ANY reason why it could be seen as a positive?
A or B be damned.
Diversity / variety
More people there are, the more music/comedy/art/science etc

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 1935
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Adverse Impact of World Expansion of Population (WEP)

Post by Sculptor1 » June 30th, 2020, 9:16 am

gad-fly wrote:
June 29th, 2020, 11:40 am
Sculptor1 wrote:
June 29th, 2020, 11:06 am

Is this all a way of avoiding answering my question?
I cannot see you asking me a question in the first place. Please quote.

I may not be in the position to answer your question. Someone else may answer it better than me.
OI!!! Attention span of a fly!! Is that why they call you Gad fly?


You'll have to say what you think you mean by marginal and transitional.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 650
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: The Adverse Impact of World Expansion of Population (WEP)

Post by chewybrian » June 30th, 2020, 11:33 am

Sculptor1 wrote:
June 29th, 2020, 11:06 am
Is this all a way of avoiding answering my question?
I don't see that you did ask a question before demanding an answer. If we are supposed to guess at what you might need to know, then I will tell you that the Cincinnati Reds won the World Series in 1990. They swept the Oakland A's. Jose Rijo was the MVP, winning two games as a starter.
Sculptor1 wrote:
June 29th, 2020, 11:06 am
Can you think of ANY area where the impact of WEP is not adverse? Can you think of ANY reason why it could be seen as a positive?
What is true at the extreme must be true at the margin. If we only had 200 or fewer people in the world at any given time in our history, we probably would not have advanced much. We would, presumably, have no space program or much technology available to us in medicine, manufacturing, or any other area. We benefit from SOME additional people on the planet, so there is a trade-off and presumably an optimum number of people, which may or may not be less than what we have now. The last person born might be the one to cure cancer or accomplish some other great thing for us.

I also choose to see value in each individual life. As long as we do not go beyond a tipping point of self-destruction (maybe we have; I don't know), then there is potential value in each unique existence and perspective for each person born. It is up to all of us to help people realize their potential, and to reach for our own, but we can not do so if we are not born.

I am partly playing devil's advocate, but also pointing out that it might not be a pure black and white issue.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

gad-fly
Posts: 567
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: The Adverse Impact of World Expansion of Population (WEP)

Post by gad-fly » June 30th, 2020, 12:07 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
June 30th, 2020, 9:16 am

You'll have to say what you think you mean by marginal and transitional.[/u][/i][/b]
I have said," The adverse effect may be marginal if the degree is acceptable on A and balanced by derived benefit on B. It would be transitional if reasonable recovery from the adverse effect can be made afterwards."

Please look up the dictionary or other authoritative sources if necessary. you may also put up your own version. i shall desist from engaging on the discussion of terms, but instead focus on the entitled thread.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 1935
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Adverse Impact of World Expansion of Population (WEP)

Post by Sculptor1 » June 30th, 2020, 12:35 pm

chewybrian wrote:
June 30th, 2020, 11:33 am
Sculptor1 wrote:
June 29th, 2020, 11:06 am
Is this all a way of avoiding answering my question?
I don't see that you did ask a question before demanding an answer. If we are supposed to guess at what you might need to know, then I will tell you that the Cincinnati Reds won the World Series in 1990. They swept the Oakland A's. Jose Rijo was the MVP, winning two games as a starter.
Sculptor1 wrote:
June 29th, 2020, 11:06 am
Can you think of ANY area where the impact of WEP is not adverse? Can you think of ANY reason why it could be seen as a positive?
What is true at the extreme must be true at the margin. If we only had 200 or fewer people in the world at any given time in our history, we probably would not have advanced much. We would, presumably, have no space program or much technology available to us in medicine, manufacturing, or any other area. We benefit from SOME additional people on the planet, so there is a trade-off and presumably an optimum number of people, which may or may not be less than what we have now. The last person born might be the one to cure cancer or accomplish some other great thing for us.

I also choose to see value in each individual life. As long as we do not go beyond a tipping point of self-destruction (maybe we have; I don't know), then there is potential value in each unique existence and perspective for each person born. It is up to all of us to help people realize their potential, and to reach for our own, but we can not do so if we are not born.

I am partly playing devil's advocate, but also pointing out that it might not be a pure black and white issue.
You're probably better off not butting in.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 1935
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Adverse Impact of World Expansion of Population (WEP)

Post by Sculptor1 » June 30th, 2020, 12:36 pm

gad-fly wrote:
June 30th, 2020, 12:07 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
June 30th, 2020, 9:16 am

You'll have to say what you think you mean by marginal and transitional.[/u][/i][/b]
I have said," The adverse effect may be marginal if the degree is acceptable on A and balanced by derived benefit on B. It would be transitional if reasonable recovery from the adverse effect can be made afterwards."
But this is ********

Please look up the dictionary or other authoritative sources if necessary. you may also put up your own version. i shall desist from engaging on the discussion of terms, but instead focus on the entitled thread.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 1935
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Adverse Impact of World Expansion of Population (WEP)

Post by Sculptor1 » June 30th, 2020, 12:37 pm

****** = B O L L O C K S

gad-fly
Posts: 567
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: The Adverse Impact of World Expansion of Population (WEP)

Post by gad-fly » June 30th, 2020, 11:11 pm

chewybrian wrote:
June 30th, 2020, 11:33 am

What is true at the extreme must be true at the margin. . . so there is a trade-off and presumably an optimum number of people

I am partly playing devil's advocate, but also pointing out that it might not be a pure black and white issue.
True about what you said that Optimum is best. Unfortunately optimum is indeterminate even with some commonly agreed criteria. To dwell on optimum population would derail this thread which should focus on the adverse Impact of WEP, say A to E, according to the order of priority. As to benevolent impacts, we can leave them for another thread. I cannot see you playing devil's advocate, but in this forum we need naysayers as much as we need agreement. If someone can points out the good side of deforestation, for example, his would be a good contribution to be welcomed.

Pure black and white issue? I would be the first to leave.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 650
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: The Adverse Impact of World Expansion of Population (WEP)

Post by chewybrian » July 2nd, 2020, 8:56 am

gad-fly wrote:
June 30th, 2020, 11:11 pm
chewybrian wrote:
June 30th, 2020, 11:33 am

What is true at the extreme must be true at the margin. . . so there is a trade-off and presumably an optimum number of people

I am partly playing devil's advocate, but also pointing out that it might not be a pure black and white issue.
True about what you said that Optimum is best. Unfortunately optimum is indeterminate even with some commonly agreed criteria. To dwell on optimum population would derail this thread which should focus on the adverse Impact of WEP, say A to E, according to the order of priority. As to benevolent impacts, we can leave them for another thread. I cannot see you playing devil's advocate, but in this forum we need naysayers as much as we need agreement. If someone can points out the good side of deforestation, for example, his would be a good contribution to be welcomed.

Pure black and white issue? I would be the first to leave.
Well, in terms of priority, it seems simple enough to put global warming at the top. It is possible that we may hit a tipping point where we make the planet hostile to future generations for a long time. To the extent that we can understand and measure these impacts, we should be prompted to put them at the top of our list. The real offenders might see a benefit, like cheap energy, without consequences from their carelessness, before future victims are even born. So, overpopulation seriously contributes to global warming without any check valve to slow the impact.

Second would seem to be resource depletion. This could be serious, for sure, and a lot of suffering could result. But, unlike something like global warming, it seems like it would be self-regulating. If we reach an extreme, people might starve, or there may be wars over resources, yet these would keep our numbers in check, or at least make the problem pressing enough for us to put real effort to solving it.

Third for me is an important one that might be overlooked. I believe that friendliness is inversely related to population. In the extreme, I will relate the conditions in the rural community where my father used to live. People you did not know would actually wave through the windshield at you as you passed them on the road going the opposite way. This seems a bit nuts to many of us, but is reasonable and practical in an area with such sparse population. If you were outside, neighbors would stop and talk to you if they happened to see you as they walked or drove by. The clerk at the store would strike up a conversation with you. In short, life went along at a human pace.

This may seem like nothing to some people, but perhaps they can not appreciate these small measures of respect for individuals because they are living in an environment approaching the other end of the spectrum. If you live in New York, you are going to assume someone is bonkers if they wave at every person they see. And, you may naturally wish to escape strangers rather than wanting to interact with them.

I say something important is lost in such an environment, and potentially in such a world. We lose track of people as individuals and never really get to know and respect them the way we could, perhaps should. A part of our humanity seems to be lost in the process.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

gad-fly
Posts: 567
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: The Adverse Impact of World Expansion of Population (WEP)

Post by gad-fly » July 2nd, 2020, 5:04 pm

chewybrian wrote:
July 2nd, 2020, 8:56 am
Well, in terms of priority, it seems simple enough to put global warming at the top.
Second would seem to be resource depletion.
Third for me is an important one that might be overlooked. I believe that friendliness is inversely related to population.
If you don't mind, I would put your priority list as follows:
1. climate change
2. resource depletion
3. sociality scarification

No doubt WEP impacts on the list above, in that order. Naysayers may declare that climate change is not a problem since change is the normal, and we have to give them due respect.

I would suggest the list to be confined to direct detrimental effect, such as species dying out or endangered, deforestation, desertification, famine, loss of habitat, refugees, and so on.

Post Reply