Saving the planet

[Joseph K]

I took it as being an objective view of how things are - not how things must be, how (practically or theoretically) they could be changed or why they are like it. That was how I read the post.

There is nothing objective as far as I can see in smittim's post, just the same sort of world-view that lies behind austerity, which as I have pointed out has objectively failed to make us any stronger as a society. Plus an attempt at a joke - efforts made to ban death? methinks not.

[oddoneout]

I should say the increasing population-growth is a result of not enough people dying. Death has become such a taboo that efforts have been made to ban it. News media talk of 'saving lives' when really they mean delaying death.

If we hadn't fought coronavirus so successsfully it would have done its job, just as the Black Death did, and the surviving, smaller human race would have been stronger as a result and better able to save the planet.

A related issue is the numbers of people living longer but not necessarily well. They need support and make limited/no contribution economically(except as consumers), but the pool of resources to do that shrinks with the combined effects of greater numbers at the older end in relation to those at the younger end. There are undoubtedly ways of mitigating that but it requires vision and political support to see (genuine, not inhumane) potential rather than problems. More and more penalties imposed on those who for whatever reason (not just age*) cannot fit the optimal wage-slave model, rather than reducing/removing obstacles to independence and self-sufficiency, is counter-productive. It also means that the kneejerk reaction to falling birth rates will continue to be "raise the replacement rate". Same kind of "thinking" that favours using new materials over existing resources, so continuing the plundering of, and damage to, the planet.

* In recent years I have known several people who have had to reduce or give up their employment due to being unable to get hip or knee replacement operations within a reasonable/manageable timescale.

[french frank]

There is nothing objective as far as I can see in smittim's post, just the same sort of world-view that lies behind austerity, which as I have pointed out has objectively failed to make us any stronger as a society. Plus an attempt at a joke - efforts made to ban death? methinks not.

Somewhat pessimistic, perhaps, whereas Marxism does seem eternally optimistic. Darwin bought into Malthusian theory, Marx provided an alternative theory, but in the end they're both theories, aren't they? One may be thought more worthy of arguing for because it does provide an 'answer'.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I'm afraid simply repeating something over and over is not enough to convince me of its veracity.

It comes down to simple mathematics. Beyond that, I don’t think we are ever likely to agree on this.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I should say the increasing population-growth is a result of not enough people dying. Death has become such a taboo that efforts have been made to ban it. News media talk of 'saving lives' when really they mean delaying death.

If we hadn't fought coronavirus so successsfully it would have done its job, just as the Black Death did, and the surviving, smaller human race would have been stronger as a result and better able to save the planet.

That may sound harsh, but in essence it’s true. When births exceed deaths, numbers will increase. Too many people bury their heads in the sand about the issue, saying ridiculous things like “Who would you suggest we kill off first?” That isn’t the answer; fewer births is.

One of the effects of the Black Death was an increase in forestation, thereby absorbing more CO2 and cooling the planet down. Admittedly this is only one theory, but it certainly adds up.

[Ein Heldenleben]

The projections are that global population will peak at 10 billion by 2100 and then begin to fall. It’s not just population rise that is driving carbon emissions . Just as important , possibly more so , is the fact as the world becomes richer carbon emissions go up. The poorer countries want manufactured goods , cars , heated houses or air con , fridges , they eat more meat BUT rising wealth means they have fewer children.
There are all sorts of complex factors driving future carbon emissions especially technological innovation. But in essence India and Africa want (or have been induced to want )western levels of consumption and with that goes higher carbon emissions. The west preaching population control and carbon reduction in these countries is pretty much viewed by then as more neo-colonial westerners telling them what they can and can’t do . Part of the negotiations happening at COP summits revolve around the Third world demanding their equivalent share of our historic carbon emissions.

[teamsaint]

The projections are that global population will peak at 10 billion by 2100 and then begin to fall. It’s not just population rise that is driving carbon emissions . Just as important , possibly more so , is the fact as the world becomes richer carbon emissions go up. The poorer countries want manufactured goods , cars , heated houses or air con , fridges , they eat more meat BUT rising wealth means they have fewer children.
There are all sorts of complex factors driving future carbon emissions especially technological innovation. But in essence India and Africa want (or have been induced to want )western levels of consumption and with that goes higher carbon emissions. The west preaching population control and carbon reduction in these countries is pretty much viewed by then as more neo-colonial westerners telling them what they can and can’t do . Part of the negotiations happening at COP summits revolve around the Third world demanding their equivalent share of our historic carbon emissions.

Presumably recent developments in green technologies ought to help temper the rise in pollution from India and China compared to comparable economic development in Europe and America.

My own view is that trying to control population is almost bound to end in adverse effects ( see China for details) and that something so complex will inevitably self correct over time. What we can do in the meantime is utilise the best available technology, and encourage responsible production and consumption.

[Bryn]

I took it as being an objective view of how things are - not how things must be, how (practically or theoretically) they could be changed or why they are like it. That was how I read the post. Darwin and Marx were contemporaries: they both made contributions in their different fields.

JK's post referred to "social-Darwinism", not Darwin. Please do not confound these two very different concepts.

[french frank]

JK's post referred to "social-Darwinism", not Darwin. Please do not confound these two very different concepts.

I don't equate them. That simply makes the original reference more exaggerated.

[Bryn]

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/birth-rate

[Bryn]

I don't equate them. That simply makes the original reference more exaggerated.

In what way exaggerated? Social Darwinism took Darwin's work out of context, to the extent that responding by referring to Marx and Darwin's work simply serves to muddy the water, as far as am concerned.

[french frank]

In what way exaggerated? Social Darwinism took Darwin's work out of context, to the extent that responding by referring to Marx and Darwin's work simply serves to muddy the water, as far as am concerned.

I really don't want to go down this route. I'll reply to your question by PM.

[Joseph K]

I really don't want to go down this route. I'll reply to your question by PM.

That’s a pity. I guess I won't be privy to why my original reference was exaggerated.

[french frank]

That’s a pity. I guess I won't be privy to why my original reference was exaggerated.

Not at all. I'm happy to send you the same reply

[Serial_Apologist]

This article is guardedly optimistic as regards sustainable new alternative means of food production being developed within cities albeit concerned about the costs involved:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-07-07/in-quest-for-food-security-cities-test-limits-of-urban-agriculture?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB