UndercoverElephant wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

Not quite. We are already overconsumptive.

Do you think it is going to be possible to convince everybody to become a vegetarian and give up owning cars?

Not actually necessary. You defend your position by painting the alternative as being necessarily extreme;

No. My position is based on hard science. Yours is lost in idealism.

it's not. People could be convinced to eat more sustainably and use more efficient means of transportation.

See: Jevon's paradox.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

Sure, but gross population isn't the primary concern at present. It's overcomsumption in the west.

False dichotomy. Both are extremely severe problems in their own right.

No. Overpopulation isn't presently a threat to global civilisation.

It is THE threat to global civilisation. It's Number One.

It probably will become that, but that's besides the point, as I mentioned, because it is the Western world's consumption that has driven us to the precipice of a giant cliff, and it is it that is continuing to push us over. African population just shouldn't even be on the radar at the moment. There's no need for threads and discussion about Africa when the West is raping and pillaging the planet and it's people right before our eyes. We should focus all efforts on this problem, not distractions like the African problem.

We need to consider both. The whole system stinks from top to bottom, and "we" are responsible for dealing with the top. That's what "Occupy" is all about, and in terms of what we should be actively doing, bringing down capitalism as we know it (or helping it on its way, because its doomed anyway) is it. However, none of this makes any difference to the fact that the number one problem facing humanity is that there are too many humans on this planet and we've left it too late to solve that problem without a catastrophe happening on a scale unknown never seen before. Your resistance to accepting what I'm saying is indicative of why we've left it too late. We don't want to think about this.

We don't want to face up to the inconvenient truth that we have a major overpopulation problem, so we don't talk about it. This is true even of most of the green movement, including its leaders.

MacIver wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

MacIver wrote:

You seem to have some idealised opinion of African society. With the exception of a tiny majority of tribals most people, at least in the areas I've been have been to are doing significant damage to the environment and the ecosystem. They drive big cars and tucks (and can afford to do so because of the cheap fuel prices) that are ancient and unleash Christ knows how much carbon-per-mile. They employ destructive fishing techniques that strip the seabed clean. Pollution is everywhere and and is ignored by the authorities - because frankly even if the authorities are not inherently corrupt they have other more immediate problems to fret over. They have the same "capitalistic-infinite-growth-with-finite-resources mentality" that we do, it's only their system are even less efficient and more damaging.

Fair enough, yes.

The Western capitalistic system and ideals are not western in nature, they are human in nature.

I don't agree. I think that's a lie that is peddled by political right-wingers. Yes, capitalism takes advantage of the natural human tendency to be motivated by greed, but this is not our natural state. Our natural state is tribal, or village-based, and based on trust and honour, not greed.

I agree completely. But the tribal based society only works with tribal sized numbers. If you want to advocate we return to that then although I don't see how it's possible to instigate on a global scale I would support your goal 100% (it's been a dream of mine since my teens to fuck off to a commune and never come back! ). But the moment you start dealing with numbers in excess of a few hundred, or a minimum a few thousand then greed and pettiness come back with a vengeance, and thus capitalism is a natural state. Insomuch as it feeds of our natural states and is the path of least resistance. That's not to say I think we should just accept this.

The West just so happened to be the first to put them into practice. There is no difference between us and them, not beyond the superficial level anyway. The only difference is because their society is a few decades behind ours they have a chance to learn from our mistakes. What right do we have to be there you ask? None. But if they want us there then what right to we have to say no?

Do they want us there? I seem to remember them kicking us out because they wanted to govern themselves.

Of course they don't want us ruling them, I don't even want us ruling us. But some of them want us helping them. I'm not pretending when I volunteered for NGOs in Africa I did it for purely altruistic reasons. When I came back my both times my head was five times the size it should be and I was a smug little, self important cunt. But I really think that I did good over there. And that I was appreciated.

As I said, education is what matters. And sure, I spent a lot of time teaching English, maths and the basics like that. But what I'm most proud of is working with the fishermen of a small village south of Toliara on the west coast of Madagascar and convincing them to use nets with a larger weave. But we also spent a lot time with the kids of that village explaining in detail the life cycle and ecosystem of the reefs. So we had to convince the fishermen of the advantages of larger weaved nets. But the next generation of fishermen will know the benefits.

Loren Michael wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Do you think it is going to be possible to convince everybody to become a vegetarian and give up owning cars?

Not actually necessary. You defend your position by painting the alternative as being necessarily extreme;

No. My position is based on hard science. Yours is lost in idealism.

No. My position is based on hard science. Yours is lost in myopia.

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

False dichotomy. Both are extremely severe problems in their own right.

No. Overpopulation isn't presently a threat to global civilisation.

It is THE threat to global civilisation. It's Number One.

It's simply not. Overpopulation in Africa has ZERO affect on my lifestyle now. However carbon (and other) pollution is having a big effect already.

We need to consider both. The whole system stinks from top to bottom, and "we" are responsible for dealing with the top. That's what "Occupy" is all about, and in terms of what we should be actively doing, bringing down capitalism as we know it (or helping it on its way, because its doomed anyway) is it. However, none of this makes any difference to the fact that the number one problem facing humanity is that there are too many humans on this planet and we've left it too late to solve that problem without a catastrophe happening on a scale unknown never seen before. Your resistance to accepting what I'm saying is indicative of why we've left it too late. We don't want to think about this.

No it's not. It's because the real problem at present is overconsumption. If we don't address that, it doesn't matter how many people Africa has in 100 years.

We don't want to face up to the inconvenient truth that we have a major overpopulation problem, so we don't talk about it. This is true even of most of the green movement, including its leaders.

I'm happy to talk about it, but put it in it's right place. It simply isn't the biggest problem in the world at the moment. Yes, we can and should address both these problems, but I could label the same charge against you that you are labelling against us - that is, you are refusing to deal with the real problem at present i.e. overconsumption in the west (and increasingly China).

rEvolutionist wrote:I thought you said overpopulation was the problem? I actually agree that economic collapse is a greater short term problem than overpopulation. I'm just trying to work out how they put it off 30 years. I can't see the system holding together for much more than a decade or so.

UndercoverElephant wrote:There's a lot of people here saying what really matters is [something that isn't overpopulation]. In other words, "let's concentrate on another major aspect of the problem, and quietly shove overpopulation to the back burner."

MacIver wrote:I used to be really worried about overpopulation. But now I think it may not be as big a problem as I once did. The real problem is over-consumption. There's no point in spending a lot of money and instigating authoritarian laws if those people who are born require or demand a higher and higher amount of resources to live the lives they do.

rainbow wrote:

MacIver wrote:I used to be really worried about overpopulation. But now I think it may not be as big a problem as I once did. The real problem is over-consumption. There's no point in spending a lot of money and instigating authoritarian laws if those people who are born require or demand a higher and higher amount of resources to live the lives they do.

Correct.
The overconsumption by the Developed countries is what is getting the world in a mess, not population growth in Africa.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

No. Overpopulation isn't presently a threat to global civilisation.

It is THE threat to global civilisation. It's Number One.

It's simply not. Overpopulation in Africa has ZERO affect on my lifestyle now. However carbon (and other) pollution is having a big effect already.

Non-sequitur. It does not follow from the above observation that overpopulation is not the greatest threat to civilisation.

We need to consider both. The whole system stinks from top to bottom, and "we" are responsible for dealing with the top. That's what "Occupy" is all about, and in terms of what we should be actively doing, bringing down capitalism as we know it (or helping it on its way, because its doomed anyway) is it. However, none of this makes any difference to the fact that the number one problem facing humanity is that there are too many humans on this planet and we've left it too late to solve that problem without a catastrophe happening on a scale unknown never seen before. Your resistance to accepting what I'm saying is indicative of why we've left it too late. We don't want to think about this.

No it's not. It's because the real problem at present is overconsumption. If we don't address that, it doesn't matter how many people Africa has in 100 years.

And if we don't address the population issue then it doesn't matter what else anybody else does about any of our ecological problems. If we don't start with ecological realism, everything that follows is a fantasy.

You are trying to draw attention to overconsumption and our capitalist system as "the real problem" in order to deflect attention from the population issue.

The reality is that we are facing a systemic, global crisis and that the number one driver of that crisis is overpopulation.

That doesn't mean there aren't a whole load of other, interconnected crises, but it does mean that we cannot just go on pretending the population problem isn't real.

We don't want to face up to the inconvenient truth that we have a major overpopulation problem, so we don't talk about it. This is true even of most of the green movement, including its leaders.

I'm happy to talk about it, but put it in it's right place. It simply isn't the biggest problem in the world at the moment. Yes, we can and should address both these problems, but I could label the same charge against you that you are labelling against us - that is, you are refusing to deal with the real problem at present i.e. overconsumption in the west (and increasingly China).

You might be able to accuse the society I belong to of that crime, but not me personally. I'm telling you the problem is systemic, and the system in question was largely invented and completely enforced by the west and increasingly China.

MacIver wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:There's a lot of people here saying what really matters is [something that isn't overpopulation]. In other words, "let's concentrate on another major aspect of the problem, and quietly shove overpopulation to the back burner."

Well, that's not what I'm doing. I truly believe that education is the key to solving all of our problems, including overpopulation.

I have a feeling you'd like to see us return to some sort of agrarian species.

But I don't think that's very realistic, nor in reality the way to solve our things. A year or two ago we officially became an urbanised civilisation, with 50+% of us living in towns and cities. I don't think we should fight that, in fact, we should embrace it. Urbanisation leads directly to lower fertility rates. It leads to better education (which leads to lower fertility rates). It leads to better health (which paradoxically leads to lower fertility rates). Also, because urbanisation is just another word for centralisation it also leads to less demand on the environment.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:I thought you said overpopulation was the problem? I actually agree that economic collapse is a greater short term problem than overpopulation. I'm just trying to work out how they put it off 30 years. I can't see the system holding together for much more than a decade or so.

Overpopulation is the number one ecological problem.

The current economic problems are partly caused by the overall ecological problem

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

And if we don't address the population issue then it doesn't matter what else anybody else does about any of our ecological problems. If we don't start with ecological realism, everything that follows is a fantasy.

Overconsumption is an ecological problem as well. And anyway, none of what you just said refutes what I said to you. Population is a problem down the track somewhere. Gross consumerism and consumption is a problem NOW and it's destroying the world NOW.

You are trying to draw attention to overconsumption and our capitalist system as "the real problem" in order to deflect attention from the population issue.

Thanks for the psychic reading, but like most psychics you are wrong. I'm not deflecting anything. It's my absolute belief as an ecologist that overconsumption is destroying the planet now, whereas overpopulation isn't.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:I thought you said overpopulation was the problem? I actually agree that economic collapse is a greater short term problem than overpopulation. I'm just trying to work out how they put it off 30 years. I can't see the system holding together for much more than a decade or so.

Overpopulation is the number one ecological problem. The current economic problems are partly caused by the overall ecological problem (although the timing has been brought forward by the cultural problems which allowed the banks to behave so irresponsiblity and get away with it.)

There is a lot more going on in that chart than economic collapse. That is a chart about what is going to be the most important and fundamental turning point in human history.

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:I thought you said overpopulation was the problem? I actually agree that economic collapse is a greater short term problem than overpopulation. I'm just trying to work out how they put it off 30 years. I can't see the system holding together for much more than a decade or so.

Overpopulation is the number one ecological problem.

In your opinion.

The current economic problems are partly caused by the overall ecological problem

Yeah, the ecological problem of overconsumption, not overpopulation.

DaveScriv wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:I thought you said overpopulation was the problem? I actually agree that economic collapse is a greater short term problem than overpopulation. I'm just trying to work out how they put it off 30 years. I can't see the system holding together for much more than a decade or so.

Overpopulation is the number one ecological problem. The current economic problems are partly caused by the overall ecological problem (although the timing has been brought forward by the cultural problems which allowed the banks to behave so irresponsiblity and get away with it.)

There is a lot more going on in that chart than economic collapse. That is a chart about what is going to be the most important and fundamental turning point in human history.

I agree with you, and so, it seems does the Chinese government, which is why they have the strict family planning controls they do. They, very reasonably, want a higher standard of living for their citizens, and understand the ecological and economic problems the reasonable expectations of their people.
If the various governments of African countries had a similar attitude for the reasonable expectations of their citizens, and the same ecological and economic consequences the situation in Africa, and worldwide consequences wouldn't be quite as bad, although inevitably still serious.
Although some people in the world can justifiably be described as overconsuming, even if (in a utopia?) all the world's current population had a level of consumption equivalent to poorer Europeans/Americans and/or middle classes in China/India, there would still be a global shortage of resources.

UndercoverElephant wrote:We don't have time for that strategy to work. Educate by all means. As much as possible. But don't pretend that this can make a difference quickly enough to avoid a catastrophe that has already begun

It is our cities which are the least sustainable.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:I thought you said overpopulation was the problem? I actually agree that economic collapse is a greater short term problem than overpopulation. I'm just trying to work out how they put it off 30 years. I can't see the system holding together for much more than a decade or so.

Overpopulation is the number one ecological problem.

In your opinion.

The current economic problems are partly caused by the overall ecological problem

Yeah, the ecological problem of overconsumption, not overpopulation.

You are setting up a false dichotomy in order to distract attention from the population problem. It's not a case of one or the other. It's BOTH.

MacIver wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:We don't have time for that strategy to work. Educate by all means. As much as possible. But don't pretend that this can make a difference quickly enough to avoid a catastrophe that has already begun

You might well be right, but I don't see any other option.

It is our cities which are the least sustainable.

Really? I disagree. It's a simple matter of mathematics. More people in a smaller area causes less strain on overall resources and produces less pollutants.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxwiVFgghE[/youtube]

There's longer talks by him on Youtube that focus on urbanisation and why it's a good thing if you're interested.