Most Important Problem Facing Humanity, Revisited
I'd like to revisit this thread.
In review of the forum poll a couple years ago, the results for "most important problem facing humanity" were deemed:
#1 - Overpopulation
#2 - Climate Change
#3 - Political corruption
This was late 2019/early 2020, so prior to the pandemic. I imagine "epidemics" would be higher on the list now.
Regardless, I keep coming back to this question. I myself voted for climate change -- but now I wonder if that wasn't rather superficial. I think there's no doubt environmental destruction needs to be addressed, but what if this overlooks why it's happening in the first place?
What I mean is this: if climate change is a result of, for example, political corruption, or overpopulation, or inequality -- then shouldn't those problems be addressed first? [hide](Then there's the issue of whether we all even agree that these issues (1) exist or (2) are problems to begin with. I made both assumptions when putting forth this poll, and over the years I've come to realize that many are either in complete denial or don't consider many things on this list a "problem," and so clearly don't think they need to be addressed/rectified in any way. But this is a digression.)[/hide]
So rather than have another poll, I'd like to pose the question again but keeping in mind what I've said above -- that is, if these problems are mere symptoms, than what is the root disease? I have my own ideas, but I think it's worth opening a discussion about it here. Interested in thoughts.
In review of the forum poll a couple years ago, the results for "most important problem facing humanity" were deemed:
#1 - Overpopulation
#2 - Climate Change
#3 - Political corruption
This was late 2019/early 2020, so prior to the pandemic. I imagine "epidemics" would be higher on the list now.
Regardless, I keep coming back to this question. I myself voted for climate change -- but now I wonder if that wasn't rather superficial. I think there's no doubt environmental destruction needs to be addressed, but what if this overlooks why it's happening in the first place?
What I mean is this: if climate change is a result of, for example, political corruption, or overpopulation, or inequality -- then shouldn't those problems be addressed first? [hide](Then there's the issue of whether we all even agree that these issues (1) exist or (2) are problems to begin with. I made both assumptions when putting forth this poll, and over the years I've come to realize that many are either in complete denial or don't consider many things on this list a "problem," and so clearly don't think they need to be addressed/rectified in any way. But this is a digression.)[/hide]
So rather than have another poll, I'd like to pose the question again but keeping in mind what I've said above -- that is, if these problems are mere symptoms, than what is the root disease? I have my own ideas, but I think it's worth opening a discussion about it here. Interested in thoughts.
Comments (92)
:up:
It's so depressing seeing nominally liberal or left leaning people buy into rebranded eugenics.
1. The Sun will explode into a humongous fiery red ball, and engulf the earth in about 400000.00 years or so.
2. Entropy, the third law of Thermodynamics.
3. The proliferation of stupidity.
Thanks for the response -- I happen to agree with you. If we want add another layer, I say it's a religious problem. Capitalism has become so ingrained in the thinking and decision making of those in power, and in our culture generally to some degree, that it's far more similar to Christianity than anything else.
Quoting tim wood
True. I certainly think that's the case with climate change, at this point. We're just out of time -- we cannot reform deeper systemic issues in time to get where we need to be. I hope I'm wrong, but waiting around for that while doing nothing about this crisis is completely irrational.
Quoting _db
I don't know if that's obvious or not. Is it? You're the second person to point it out so far -- so that alone is hopeful -- but I'm not sure that immediately springs to mind when discussing nuclear weapons or climate change or the use of technology, etc. Maybe political corruption. But you're right that it's easier to identify the problem than solve it. But my point is that we can't get very far if we don't identify the root of the problem, if for no other reason than to prioritize attacking it.
Quoting _db
I'm not sure what you mean by "technique" here. Technology? If so I think that's an important point historically. After all, would there be the capitalism today without the industrial revolution? So perhaps that's the real issue here. But I see technology as dependent on how it's used, and that depends on human beings in power, who make decisions based on beliefs and values.
I think another way to look at it is simply this: greed.
Don't get me wrong. Status can be a very important thing if its used as as tool to see who should be in charge for the good of everyone around them. But that's many times not the case. People don't want to give up power, or perceived status in society, even if it would make the world a better place. As long as we care more about status than the people around us, we will keep making the same primitive mistakes that lead to many of the world's preventable ills.
An important point. I think it can it's related to greed. I suppose greed is a "will to power," just manifested in this case in the desire for more and more wealth and money. Still, it's a tale as old as history.
Concentration of power, probably.
You should probably include the threat of nuclear war to that list.
But it's already been identified, more times than can be counted. At this point it's just shuffling papers around, a temporary catharsis.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
I am skeptical that sociological problems can be fully explained by the behavioral habits of the elite. I would argue that even the elite feel the coercive pull of technique. It is technique that is the puppet master.
You're right. So maybe a better thread is to discuss solutions, goals, programs, etc. I'll create one for that alone -- although it may exclude some people who don't yet see it this way, or any way at all perhaps. But that may be a more interesting line to take.
Quoting _db
What rational methods? Give an example. Are games and music also "technique"? Why not use the word in the Greek sense of techne instead?
Quoting _db
Again, I may agree with you but I'm failing to see how "methods rationally arrived at" (technique, according to your citation) exert a coercive pull? Do you mean cell phones, computers, the Internet? Cars, planes, roads, electricity, the telegram, and television? All of these entities I would consider technology, and thus agree they have an enormous pull on everywhere, including the concentrations of wealth and power in the world.
Still, it is the elite's ideology that prevails. Why? Because the decisions they make, the influence they exert, and the control they wield (which is what I mean by "powerful") is ultimately grounded and justified in a particular picture of the world -- that means of life, of human beings, and of life's purpose. That is as much true of Pope Innocent (in terms of Christianity) in medieval times as it is for Jamie Dimon and Larry Page (in terms of capitalism) today, and for that matter the rest of the bourgeoisie (to use Marx's terminology).
So I see it as more guided but beliefs, perceptions, perspective, attitudes, values -- than I do in terms of technology's pull. But I know some interesting people, present and past, who make a compelling case for the latter. It's an interesting conversation to have one way or another.
Why?
Has to be human nature!
Which aspects of it?
Others have already mentioned them.
The paradox: We're mother nature's creation. Mother nature is her own worst enemy. But before we jump to conclusions, a word to the wise: Everything happens for a reason! There are no accidents! God moves in mysterious ways! What if that we perceive to be problems are actually solutions? I have a feeling that the disequilibrium humans have caused will elicit an equal and opposite (Newton) reaction from another quarter, as of yet unidentified, and balance will eventually be restored.
Climate change: Pyrexia/hyperthermia
Corruption: Redistribution of blood flow (shock)
Oh my gosh! Humanity/earth is crashing! Acute shock with malignant pyrexia! Code red! Code Red!
What if the cure for cancer can be found in effective population control measures? Does earth need a dose of Tylenol? Can we cure corruption by taking tips from emergency physicians who treat shock on almost a daily basis?
Close second is probably what I call humanity's "Very Hungry Caterpillar-syndrome," which I would typify as a collective lack of understanding of the nature of one's desires, that puts humanity in a perpetual state of wanting more.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/31/an-inconvenient-apocalypse-climate-crisis-book
:death: :fire:
Expand & Elaborate ... please.
Animals lack so-called inner awareness and they're in near-perfect harmony with the environment and even if they do upset the ecology, the effects are on the whole local and definitely not global. I recommend we lobotomize humans - a bit extreme but my hunch is it'll do the trick. This is a mind begging that it be switched off - a plea for mercy killing. O mind, what hast thou wrought?
Completely agree :100: :up:
It is a multi faceted problem with the size of the human brain at the base of it all, it is that from which all our self-inflicted misery stems. Worse yet the misery and the destruction we inflict on all of the other species, flora and fauna alike. And to make matters even more worse humanity itself is divided into a plethora of self-opinionated individuals. Therefor humanity is not only its own worst enemy but an antagonist to all other life as well, the proof is in the pudding.
Failure of individuals to mature beyond allowing their biological incentive systems (aka emotions, reward/punishment systems) to control beliefs, thoughts and actions. For all intents and purposes, a large percentage of the population have the mental maturity of a typical13-year-old or less. With others the mental maturity of a typical late teen or less. With others the mental maturity of a typical 25-year-old or less.
Following are but a few symptoms:
irrational views
self-centered views
believing that things are true because they believe them
believing that things are true because they know others that believe as they do
use of alcohol and other mood altering substances including caffeine
unhealthy eating
gambling
hoarding
adventure seeking
greed
racism
homophobia
misogyny
The list goes on and on...
Maybe. If those in power were a little more aware, perhaps then they wouldn’t make such short-sighted, greedy, anti-social decisions. In that case I can see it. But we can’t all be meditators, I guess.
Anyway — even with awareness, ideology still lurks. One can be an aware Christian or Buddhist or capitalist. Doesn’t necessarily change that belief system and corresponding actions. Culture and education can help, but that’s a long term solution.
By far the greatest number of deaths has been because of aging, not to mention the suffering of losing one's mind, sense and abilities...and knowing everyone we love will also go through that.
I might be half joking.
Good question! I think all our problems can be traced back to not listenimg to Aristotle. :snicker:
Quoting Xtrix
I think it has to be looked for in the human mind and ethics.
The human mind --rationality, intelligence, understanding, acquisition of knowledge, etc.-- because it is based on this that situations are analyzed, future is predicted, good or bad (not ethics-wise) solutions are found and actions (not ethics-wise) are taken.
Ethics, because it is based on this that right or wrong actions are taken that are for the benefit of a minority or the majority (at every level in the society), that responsibility is assumed or waived, that important/vital matters (for life as well as the environment) are handled or ignored and, in general, whatever concerns the survival of this planet and the people that live on it.
Indeed, the initial 3 problems that you mentioned: overpopulation, climate Change and political corruption --as well as the epidemics that you have added later, and also pollution, shortage of fuel and energy sources, etc. -- depend completely on the above two elements. Don't they?
There may be other important problems that humanity is faced with at this moment or it will be faced with tomorrow. Their root will always be the human mind and ethics.
We have to exclude of course known natural phenomena and potential dangers for which Man is not and will not be responsible. Of which, I can't think any at this moment.
Living in Colorado I think about this occasionally: Yellowstone Caldera
To go without crises means to fully overcome mother nature, and achieve some type of philoso-scientific utopia. By that I mean a place where humanity could gain control over outer and inner nature. But why wait on a state that we see very far off and only existing in imagination when there are real states of harmony with nature that we have experienced and know can be achieved?
I think overpopulation is the solution to the two other – and most other – problems. How to do it ethically is the real problem. How can climate change exist when there aren't enough human beings to consume the energy to cause it? How can corruption affect us all when we exist in smaller and more localized groups? How can there be shortage of work when one knows how to exploit natures fruit oneself? In mother nature's eyes, strife is the way to ascend, and excess comfort and ease the way to descend.
We are our own worst enemy! The lion has nothing to fear except ... another lion.
:lol:
Does it present an imminent threat for the people in Colorado? I hope not! :pray:
Anyway, this is a local problem. Here, we are talking about the whole humanity.
There is no "key problem" to address first, second third... Unless we can rewind history and delete everything that happened since 1700 CE, we are stuck with problems that are nigh unto insoluble. And even if we could rewind and delete, we wouldn't be any smarter this time than we were the last time.
:rofl: It's that bad, eh? I had my suspicions.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Most insightful - I think this way of looking at things is because of right-handed people (the majority), disturbingly computerish. We lefties/southpaws are all about adiaphora (was Pyrrho left-handed?) - monochromatic vision, that's us.
“The greater part of the world's troubles are due to questions of grammar.”
? Michel de Montaigne, The Complete Essays
On a similar note, Mark Twain said "You may die of a misprint."
And there is an old saying "The devil's in the details"
Also AI:
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/K35MwKhmY64 (I doubt this story is true, but Musk may be right)
Of course there is. Unless we want to claim all problems are the same— or that problems don’t exist. But that’s absurd.
I’d say any issue that’s potentially existential— nuclear weapon proliferation, for example — is more urgent and deserves more attention than others that are also important but not existential (say abortion rights).
Quoting Bitter Crank
I don’t think that’s close to true. Plenty of solutions. But if you’re correct— then we might as well “wave goodbye to each other,” as Chomsky would say. Either way I’m fighting to the end — for no other reason than “why not?”
Yes, there are priorities: #1: cut CO2 emissions (a lot). Institute carbon capture (above ground and below). There are false solutions not worth pursuing: a billion electric cars replacing a billion gas-powered cars will help car manufacturers and investors--it's not what I would call a critical solution.
Global warming is happening and consequent conflicts are arising. Drought, minor wars, failed government, etc. combine to create famine and further destabilize regions. And so on and so forth.
You and I can make a long list of problems, and it quickly becomes clear that global solutions might be beyond our human managerial talents. There are many powerful interests that individuals, groups, and nations pursue, in the face of those interests being lethal in the long run. Russia invading Ukraine is an example. Brexit is another. Continued capitalist expansion is still more. On and on
Decarbonization is a key solution that interferes with the interests companies, regions, and nations have in carbon.
It is theoretical possible that we all unite to overcome all of these obstacles, and I hope we do. What supports my pessimism is our poor long-term record.
In order to keep things soft, sweet and simple, I will say that once one gains a strong inner awareness, one is compelled to truly feel the shared implications of one's actions and thoughts and feelings. This empathy, that comes from opening inner space to observation and awareness, is the gift (as well as building block) that eventually leads to a new world.
I recall reading the ash in Missouri was several feet deep. Volcanic eruptions are nothing to sneeze at.
Really awful! :gasp:
That's a great question. I do. But, as with everything right now, all energies are expanding or growing in intensity. This includes the unwillingness to to look inside one's self.
I’d say those are all relevant problems pertaining to his existential situation. I’d prioritize those questions over whether he believes abortion is a human right.
Some problems are more important than others. Not every problem is an existential one.
For those that are existential— than yes, they’re equally important. Nuclear weapons and climate change are existential — hence, they’re more important than others. Is there ONE problem or ONE cause? No, not always. But so what? My question is to provoke thought about the problems we face.
Addendum to .
Quoting 180 Proof
:point: re: the Malthusian-Climate Change problem
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220905-is-the-world-overpopulated
Isn't that (medical) triage? What's missing is an understanding of planetary health - no one has any idea of Earth's vitals, crucial physical parameters, that help doctors tell the difference between ER/OPD cases. Is the Earth sick, is this an emergency or not, what's the etiology, how do I confirm the diagnosis, what's the best course of treatment, how do I monitor the Earth, as it ages, does Earth become prone to specific kinds of illnesses?
I also found listed "6 common errors when solving problems"
with one being, "Most incorrectly believe that root-cause analysis ultimately finds one cause."
~reliabilityweb.com
Quoting Agent Smith
We do love our analogies don't we? Well doctor, when the patient has his hands round your neck and his foot on your testicles, the treatment I would recommend is a fast improvement in bedside manners.
:lol: Therein lies the rub, monsieur, therein lies the rub. Superb point!
I quote it at length:
[quote=Dr. Danielle Carr]
This principle is what some health researchers mean by the idea that there are social determinants of health — that effective long-term solutions for many medicalized problems require nonmedical — this is to say, political — means. We all readily acknowledge that for diseases like diabetes and hypertension — diseases with a very clear biological basis — an individual’s body is only part of the causal reality of the disease. Treating the root cause of the “epidemic” of diabetes effectively, for example, would happen at the level of serious infrastructural changes to the available diet and activity levels of a population, not by slinging medications or pouring funding into clinics that help people make better choices in supermarkets filled with unregulated, unhealthy food. You’ve got to stop the guy running over people with the car.
[…]
This doesn’t mean that all psychiatric symptoms are caused by stress, but it does mean that a whole lot of them almost certainly are. There is increasingly strong evidence for the idea that chronic elevation of stress hormones has downstream effects on the neural architecture of the brain’s cognitive and emotional circuits. The exact relationship between different types of stress and any given cluster of psychiatric symptoms remains unclear — why do some people react to stress by becoming depressed, while others become impulsive or enraged? — indicating that whatever causal mechanism exists is mediated by a variety of genetic and social conditions. But the implications of the research are very clear: When it comes to mental health, the best treatment for the biological conditions underlying many symptoms might be ensuring that more people can live less stressful lives.
And here is the core of the problem: Medicalizing mental health doesn’t work very well if your goal is to address the underlying cause of population-level increases in mental and emotional distress. It does, however, work really well if you’re trying to come up with a solution that everybody in power can agree on, so that the people in power can show they’re doing something about the problem. Unfortunately, the solution that everyone can agree on is not going to work.
Everyone agrees, for instance, that it would be good to reduce the high rate of diabetes plaguing the United States. But once we begin to de-medicalize it, diabetes starts to look like a biological problem arising from a vast swathe of political problems: transportation infrastructure that keeps people sedentary in cars, food insecurity that keeps a racialized underclass dependent on cheap and empty calories, the power of corporate lobbies to defang regulations, and so on. These are problems that people do not agree on how to solve, in part because some are materially benefiting from this state of affairs. This is to say, these are political problems, and solving them will mean taking on the groups of people who benefit from the status quo.
[…]
And yet when the plan addresses suicide, it focuses on crisis intervention — as if suicide were a kind of unfortunate natural occurrence, like lightning strikes, rather than an expression of the fact that growing numbers of people are becoming convinced that the current state of affairs gives them no reason to hope for a life they’d want to live.
Solving the mental health crisis, then, will require fighting for people to have secure access to infrastructure that buffers them from chronic stress: housing, food security, education, child care, job security, the right to organize for more humane workplaces and substantive action on the imminent climate apocalypse.
[/quote]
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/20/opinion/us-mental-health-politics.html
Here I think it’s clear: while climate change, for example, is existential— it is, ultimately, a symptom: a result of a political and economic decisions, motivated by greed. Capitalism, then, is indeed the “infrastructure” that needs to be undone.
Personally, I don't know any humans who lack inner awareness. It is indeed hard even to imagine a human without inner awareness.
I don't think this is a major problem, because it is simply isn't so.
NO, it is not at all clear, but only if you use your own head to think, instead of getting utterly impressed by some rhetoric that appeals to you.
I should have thought that it is overpopulation that is the force that currently destroys our own habitat. Capitalism and greed are not any more a driving force of our woes than the care extended to each human being to the maximum of our abilities to sustain their lives and help them create offspring. Hospitals, medical science, humanitarian governmening, are even more the culprits of our current state of disastrous outlook than capitalism or greed.
The proof of this is simple. Imagine the human population with the same group behaviour as ours, but
A. having altogether ten thousand members on the entire globe with a Capitalist, greedy system,
and
B. having the same number as today, without Capitalism. This changes the grounding premiss a bit, but it does not render the exercise impossible or unfair.
Clearly, A would stop our troubles in their tracks, whereas B would not make any difference to anyone or anything inasmuch as the continuation of the destroying the habitat is concerned.
QED, it is the overpopulation and not the economic forces that drive us to annihilation or to something near to it.
I know plenty of people who recoil in absolute horror when even a mention of "inner awareness" is uttered.
Absolutely!! Absolutely!! I couldn't agree more.
But it's not due to the lack of their own inner awareness. It is due to their abhorrence over the apparent pretension associated to things that people say who talk about "Inner awareness".
Except that’s a myth.
It’s not overpopulation. When 7% of the global population are responsible for 50% of carbon emissions— I don’t think “overpopulation” is the problem.
Consumption Dwarfs Population as Main Environmental Threat
It’s a nice story to tell ourselves. It once again absolves the behavior of the affluent and the powerful — which is the true driving force — of responsibility. But like most stories told by the capitalist class, it’s complete bullshit the moment you think about it more deeply.
It’s on par with that other great story told about climate change: “natural forces.” “There’s little we can do, because…it’s the sun. There’s little we can do about global problems because… it’s overpopulation.”
Complete rubbish.
You're right. There's a certain kind of lifestyle that's putting out CO2 way out of proportion to other forms.
Yet the difference between lifestyles on the earth today comes down to scale for the most part. Americans are adapted to a high emissions lifestyle. For many, it's all they know. They aren't being particularly greedy.
We aren't being punished for our sins, in other words. There's reason to believe we've been altering the climate for thousands of years. The true cause goes deeper than any particular economic system.
Then wait a bit, and it will become the biggest problem, if population growth continues. It is not only the carbon emissions that the overpopulation causes... arable land use, water use, depleting natural resources.
That's A. B. is that 100% of the population is responsible for 100% of human-caused carbon emissions.
Going back to the first point, what you called a myth: Let's imagine that the 7% of people who cause 50 percent of all carbon emission, somehow revert to very small carbon footsteps. The total of carbon emission today would be reduced to 53.5% of yesterday's value. That's great.
However, please consider, that the global population grew since I followed the statistics first, because they taught this in school to us, from 3.5 to 4 billion 62 years ago to 7 usque 8 billion people today. That means that give it another 60 years, having the population behaving in an exemplary way with regard to carbon emission, you will be in the same position as today.
I understand that harnessing the energy coming from the sun will reduce the carbon emissions. Fine. But the greenery on Earth uses the same sunlight energy as the man-made contraptions - be the contraptions wind-harnessing turbines, or solar panels - and I am not sure there will be enough sunlight left to feed the population via raising vegetables and livestock, and to create forests. There is only so much to go around. Right now the Earth is losing the battle of reducing carbon emission-based regeneration of greenery. In the future, with double the population in 60 years, I fear that the problem won't be gone.
Therefore I say, QED, that the biggest problem mankind faces is the trend of humans to propagate their numbers unchecked.
“Overpopulation” doesn’t cause any of those things.
Overpopulation is an abstraction. Blaming the worlds problem on this abstraction is a useful ploy to divert from the reality — which is that the behavior of a small percentage of the world population is responsible for most problems.
Quoting god must be atheist
No. This is completely wrong. A small percentage of the world is responsible for carbon emissions. Mainly the wealthiest and most powerful class of people, and multinational corporations.
Blaming the hundreds of millions of Africans — or lumping them in with everyone else, as if per capita emission averages don’t matter — is, again, a silly and destructive thing to do. Also happens to be shallow and incorrect.
Quoting god must be atheist
And therefore I repeat, yet again, that this is complete rubbish.
I assume you mean by "small percentage of the world population" the highly civilized nations (HCN), to which millions flee, desperate to be admitted, for the promises of a better life. Are you saying the HCNs both create most problems but solve many problems?
Were it not for the HCNs life would be barbaric with early deaths from disease and injuries. Look at the American Indians.
Spare me clichés.
Millions flee to the countries that have systematically destroyed theirs, sure. No one doubts the US and other “highly civilized” countries are wealthy. They should be, having plundered the earth for centuries.
But no, I don’t just me the OECD countries. I mean exactly what I said: the wealthy and powerful class.
Quoting jgill
You’re right— I’m sure they’d thank us, too. Had we not brutally (“barbarically”) wiped out their civilizations. You know, us “highly civilized” types.
Quoting Xtrix
OK
"Those things" are lack of enough arable land, water use, natural resources.
So... tell me, if overpopulation does not cause the shortages of water, arable land and natural resources that humanity uses... then what causes them. This is important that you state the reason, because I think you are patently wrong on this issue.
you yourself said that 7% of the population is responsible for 50% of carbon emissions. Now you say that the 7% is responsible for 100% of carbon emissions.
Why do you think anyone should take your statements seriously, when you contradict yourself in the span of a few posts?
Quoting Xtrix
Excuse me? How is overpopulation an abstraction? People are real. Their numbers are real. Their increasing number is a fact. Then you say that it's a... what? An abstraction?
This is not sound reasoning, in my opinion. Please explain how overpopulation is not a real happening in the real world as we know them.
You come out with outrageously wrong opinions: facts are abstractions in your view, historical numbers change at your whimsy to support your (false) arguments, and you are caught on contradicting yourself.
Quoting Tate
Tate, please consider this argument which I have already presented, in so many other words, as a response to Xtrix's well-thought out argument.
If the world's population was 10,000 people in total, then the emission problem would not be there, regardless what currently used lifestyle those 10,000 people pursued.
If the world's population was double the size of today's population, the emission problem would be present, even if the entire world population used the same, low amount of emission as Xtrix established, which was 50% of today's emission by 93% of the population. (If 7% uses 50%, which Xtrix claims, then by Xtrix's own admission 93 percent of the world's population produces the other 50% of carbon emissions.) So even if in today's world we'd create only 50% of the presently created carbon emission, then in sixty years, assuming the same rate of population growth, we'd be creating the same PROBLEMATIC amount of carbon emissions.
So while you are right that a certain kind of lifestyle causes the putting out a lot of CO2, even if you eliminated that lifestyle, the problem would still be with us the same way in 60 years.
This is why I insist that it is the overpopulation that is the root cause of many, many problems and the major cause of problems we face today as a species.
Decisions by a handful of people in government and business.
Quoting god must be atheist
I didn’t once say that.
Quoting god must be atheist
Yes. People are real, and their numbers are increasing. The concept of “overpopulation,” however, is a myth and an abstraction. This isn’t hard.
Quoting god must be atheist
Except that none of that is true. The truth is simply that you haven’t read carefully enough and are, as usual, misunderstanding and fabricating.
Back to the point: overpopulation is a myth and an excuse to divert attention from the real culprit of environmental destruction.
Since you’re not big on reading articles, I’ll quote the article I mentioned:
Like with other subjects you don’t understand, a little research goes a long way.
Stop trying to figure things out from your armchair — you’re not good at it. Do some READING.
It seems we disagree here. I put credence in the notion that some folks don't value inner-sight; or don't value training their latent inwards-looking understanding. It's a conclusion that I've come to over the years of looking for a community that exudes an inner sense of awareness and competence, while being able to find only a few such groups.
But, I could be wrong! How I plead to be so.
No, it is not hard. Inasmuch as an idiotic opinion, as wrong as it can be, is not hard to understand, either.
A myth and an abstraction are a fantasm and a thing not pertaining to the real world, respectively;Quoting Xtrix
whereas people, their numbers, and their numbers increasing are real things, not fantasms, and they pertain to the real world. To understand that you call overpopulation a myth and an abstraction, is easy, as it is also easy to see how you err in your judgment.
You blame the shortage of water, arable land and natural resources on the decisions by a few people in government and business. Yes, they make the decisions, but they make the decisions as the extended power of the people. If the people really did not like those decisions, then they would vote a government that reversed those decisions. But the people did not vote their representatives out because of these decisions. So stop saying that the cause of the world's problems are resting on the decisions of a few people. That is a short-sighted, biassed opinion by you, as I see it.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, you did. Not by verbatim quote, but by implication, when you said:
"A small percentage of the world is responsible for carbon emissions."
I appreciate that you did not mean to say this, but then don't blame me for your inaccuracy of composition.
It is one thing to read more, it's another thing to read and write with care. You win on the first account (you read more) I win on the second account.
I appreciate that you read more than I do. While that is most likely true, that is not an acceptable argument.
No they don’t. Governments are bought by corporations, and corporations are not governed by “the people” — they’re undemocratic.
Quoting god must be atheist
Please do some reading. This is embarrassingly naive.
Quoting god must be atheist
I will not stop saying it, because unlike most of what you’ve written, it has the merit of being true.
Your knowing nothing about corporate power and influence isn’t grounds for abandoning a well-documented analysis— sorry.
Quoting god must be atheist
No, I didn’t.
Quoting god must be atheist
What I said was:
Quoting god must be atheist
Which is true. See above about government and business.
If you’re really hung up on whether it counts for ALL emissions..,then no, of course not. Exhaling creates CO2, if we want to be childish and count that. But I’m not interested in childish discussions.
Okay. Fact-check ...
Quoting Xtrix
Overpopulation is one of the main drivers of anthropogenic climate change. Consider:
(carbon dioxide emissions by country, as shares of 30 gigatonne per annum, 2019)
https://climatetrade.com/which-countries-are-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-polluters/
(populations by country, 2019)
https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_POPSOC_569_0001--the-population-of-the-world-2019.htm
As of 2019, the top ten carbon emitting countries (gigatonnes):
[b]1. China 1.4b people (10gt)
2. United States .339b people (5.4gt)
3. India 1.4b people (2.7gt)[/b]
4. Russia .144b people (1.6gt)
5. Japan .127 b people (1.2gt)
6. Germany, .084b people (.76gt)
7. Iran .083b people (.72gt)
8. South Korea .051b people (.66gt)
9. Saudi Arabia .034b people (.62gt)
10. Indonesia .269b people (.62gt)
3.92b people out of 7.7b people or c51% of the world population (2019) emitted 24.3 gigatonnes out of c30 gigatonnes (annual) or c81% of global carbon dioxide emissions (2019).
41% of the world pop. (China, US & India) accounted for 60% of global carbon dioxide emissions (2019).
Quoting god must be atheist
Population definitely amplifies the problem.
Quoting god must be atheist
Ok, but so what? How does that impact the way we address the issue?
That is the million dollar question.
Well, there are two ways that we can address that issue:
1. Declare that Xtrix was wrong in his or her assessment in this debate.
2. Reduce population size.
2.1. Population size can't be reduced without drastic measures.
2.2. Drastic measures are opposed by democratic, humanitarian societies.
Woody Allen gave a speech to graduating Harvard students some time ago. He said, roughly, not verbatim:
"Humanity faces a choice between self-annihilation and utter misery. I hope we have the wisdom to choose the right one."
In other words: the question "How does that impact the way we address the issue?" is unanswerable without having something to give:
- our good, humanitarian feelings,
- the utter comfort of our lives, or
- accepting complete or near-complete self-annihilation as a species.
A lot of countries have close to zero population growth. It turns out that when women have the option to get educated and have careers, the growth rate plummets.
Plus I think climate change will put a dent in the human population.
All is not lost.
Hungary has negative growth rate because it takes the salaries or incomes of two adults to sustain three souls.
In some other countries this is also true, but the other countries have high growth rates. (Egypt, Zimbabwe, etc.) They create more humans not because they can afford them, but because society's expectations, and of individual's, of what constitutes "afford" or "sustain" a human, are set much lower than in Hungary.
Much growth is attributable to religious indoctrination and expectations-- like Christian countries used to be, now the Muslim world is propagandizing, very successfully, the idea that a man is only a man if he has more children than his neighbour. Or some other spiritual incentive, I don't know the Koran.
Losing ground in terms of population is stressful. A labor shortage appears. The labor that does exist can make bigger demands.
Yep.
Important to remember that the issue isn’t individual consumption, however. It’s true that rich individuals consume more than poor ones. Taylor Swift flies her private jet around a lot, etc.
If we compare her to Darren Woods— she’s probably produced more CO2, in terms of individual consumption. That alone should tell you the true story of what’s going on, and why talk about individual “carbon footprint” is mostly the creation of the fossil fuel industry itself.
The issue is power. Power of a handful of people in government and business. They make decisions of production that we all live with. That’s true for China, India, and the US.
The issue is not increasing human populations. Maybe that’ll be a problem one day. It’s not a problem today.
The problem identified is net overconsumption of and/or by national populations as shares of the global population. Why even mention "individual consumption"?
The issue is one of communication. Better communication is necessary. The responsibility for this starts with each individual striving to listen with honesty and speak with honesty. It is a brave thing to do and a hard thing to do but it can at least be something we can all direct ourselves towards more and more through time and instil in our species as a cultural virtue.
I think there is a real danger of voices being silenced and speech being policed to the point where we are going to have a terribly hard time turning the tide back on itself.
Ironically I think the answers lie in unravelling precisely how and why we communicate in the first place. This will be a major area of work for cognitive neuroscientists and philosophers alike. In political realms we appear to be living in the ‘death of nation’ stage of human civilisation. It is just a question of whether we create something ‘new’ or simply revert to some convoluted semi-religious paradigm that does a reasonable job of mimicking patriotism.
I have heard it said that ‘Art’ is a good predictor of how human culture will develop … given the state of the world of Art appears to have been more or less geared towards corrupting Art into some nonsense that is merely the whim of an individual’s insanity (so-called ‘contemporary art’). We can possibly expect the philosophical, or rather pseudo-philosophical, to start begin to take centre stage in human culture.
Note: I am not convinced that ‘Art’ does a good job of predicting the course of human culture just having a bit of fun there ;)
Populations consist of individuals. So even per capita statistics are misleading. General national statistics or global statistics are even more misleading.
Citing the US, China, and India is fine — they are indeed the largest emitters. But that’s not saying much — and if used to justify the position that overpopulation is a driving issue, especially so.
It may very well be why we’re in the mess we’re in. Perhaps greed as well. I tried listing some concrete problems without focusing on causes, I guess. But if I included those, communication would certainly factor in.
:mask:
Quoting Xtrix
Well, it's saying at least as much as "7% of the world's population is responsibble for 50% of the emissions", as you've claimed, is factually incorrect by a significant margin. :eyes:
It isn’t. I quoted a snippet from the article, and I guess I can’t fault anyone for not reading it and taking my statement as a stand-alone— but the figure was from 2009, and is much more precise than simply looking at national emissions.
I think this is likely any underestimate, but that’s another story.
I couldn't find his original statement anywhere. It's alluded to without any citation. Kind of useless.