Ask an Anarchist!

[Orcka]

On the topic of personal freedom vs. economic equality (socialism):

What about my freedom to collect (additional) compensation for supplying a product or service in response to market demand?  In other words, my freedom to engage in entrepreneurship, which in itself does not bring harm to others and in fact could be considered beneficial when considered in isolation?

 

If everyone decided to do their own thing without regard for what is actually needed, the economic system would collapse.  Who would do the jobs no one wants to do?  For an analogy, consider what happens when there's a major war and there's a shortage of soldiers.  Eventually a draft has to be imposed to force people to fight who don't want to fight.  That is the eventual outcome of a true socialist system.  People are drafted into occupations because otherwise the system will collapse.  That's the opposite of personal liberty.  A capitalist system gives you incentives to choose jobs that are in demand, but there's ways out of it if you're willing to sacrifice.  With a true socialist system, you have no choice at all.  The government tells you what you'll do, and if you don't obey you get oppressed or worse.

[Darklord Rooke]

 

Just as the title states, feel free to ask me about Libertarian Socialism (another way of stating "Anarchism"). I wish to clear up misconceptions about both the word and it's political meaning. So please, don't be shy, throw everything you got at me!

 

Eh, good luck, but I don't know why you'd take the effort. Not really a fan of anarchism or socialism myself, they're not really progress oriented ideologies so to speak. 

 

1.) I would recommend watching this, it is a video explains how individual self concern harms other people: 

 

[Nashetania]

You're right, neither of those statements are "goals" they are propositional statements. The goal of liberals, for example, is to create a society in which the state has no interference in the personal lives of its citizens. Liberalism itself is not the goal it is the ideology to perpetuate the statement I just made. 

[Orcka]

Ideology has goals though. Not to mention that others I mentioned are ideologies too.

Ok, let me try to make this as clear as day for you: 

 

Anarchism is a process, this what the process looks like: 

 

step 1.) Question a social hierarchy, and ask the opposing front if the X value is justifiable. 

step 2.) If the opposing front cannot provide a justifiable reason to why the social hierarchy is needed to function in a human society, we will then attempt to dismantle it since it is void of justification.

 

One can say that this process leads to the movement between "more anarchy" to "less anarchy". More anarchy represents social hierarchies being removed, while less anarchy can represent social hierarchies being unjustifiably added (unjust laws, police control, ect...). 

 

The ultimate goal of anarchists is to remove as many social heiresses as possible that do not meet their burden of proof. 

 

Even if we achieve this today, tomorrow, new ideas, problems, propositions will occur, which will bring up the two steps I stated earlier. 

 

Pure anarchism is a fictional term because it is based on the assumption that once a system void of social hierarchies is achieved, the society will become stagnant and never change. If you ask any sociologist, they would state that this is impossible because outside/internal forces and issues will continuously effect and change the social structure of societies. 

[Nashetania]

Ok, let me try to make this as clear as day for you: 

 

Anarchism is a process, this what the process looks like: 

 

step 1.) Question a social hierarchy, and ask the opposing front if the X value is justifiable. 

step 2.) If the opposing front cannot provide a justifiable reason to why the social hierarchy is needed to function in a human society, we will then attempt to dismantle it since it is void of justification.

 

One can say that this process leads to the movement between "more anarchy" to "less anarchy". More anarchy represents social hierarchies being removed, while less anarchy can represent social hierarchies being unjustifiably added (unjust laws, police control, ect...). 

 

The ultimate goal of anarchists is to remove as many social heiresses as possible that do not meet their burden of proof. 

 

Even if we achieve this today, tomorrow, new ideas, problems, propositions will occur, which will bring up the two steps I stated earlier. 

 

Pure anarchism is a fictional term because it is based on the assumption that once a system void of social hierarchies is achieved, the society will become stagnant and never change. If you ask any sociologist, they would state that this is impossible because outside/internal forces and issues will continuously effect and change the social structure of societies. 

No it's not.

Anarchy is what it's called when it's completed, it's not a process.......

No shit it's fictional, that's what I keep telling you.

Even conversation with wall is more productive... 

[Soulless Watcher]

I've been trying to put my finger on why I don't like the concept of this Anarchism and I think I may have found what is bothering me. I hate the idea that a certain ideology is inherently "good" or "bad" and it seems like Anarchists love to piss on anything that has a social hierarchy simply because there is a ranking system. There have been dictators who were very kind and benevolent and there has been democracies that focused on enslaving nations and slaughtering people. When a government dosn't work, the ideology may have a hand in it, but more offten than not it's the people involved. Humans in general are greedy and self-serving by nature, that isn't going to change by removing the social ranking system. People will continue to discriminate and exploit others, it just may look a bit differently in an anarchist state.

[Orcka]

I've been trying to put my finger on why I don't like the concept of this Anarchism and I think I may have found what is bothering me. I hate the idea that a certain ideology is inherently "good" or "bad" and it seems like Anarchists love to piss on anything that has a social hierarchy simply because there is a ranking system. There have been dictators who were very kind and benevolent and there has been democracies that focused on enslaving nations and slaughtering people. When a government dosn't work, the ideology may have a hand in it, but more offten than not it's the people involved. Humans in general are greedy and self-serving by nature, that isn't going to change by removing the social ranking system. People will continue to discriminate and exploit others, it just may look a bit differently in an anarchist state.

 

First off, Anarchists are not against all forms of hierarchies, only those that fail to meet their burden of proof. A justifiable case of hierarchy is that of a child and his/her guardian. It is morally acceptable to protect a child from danger, like a car for example. Me pushing the child away from the car is a justifiable act of force that protects the life of the child. 

 

I believe your second statement can be summarized as "humanity will not change whether it is anarchy or some other form of political ideology, and thus Anarchy is not better or worse than other political ideologies."  

 

Perhaps this is something more primal psychedelic, but in fact you are correct. Human beings are easily susceptible to greed and corruption. However, this is the EXACT reason why Anarchists advocate the removal of hierarchies. Time and time again, we have been shown historically that humanity is morally incapable of holding positions of power (even if some individuals were just, this not true for all cases). You might think that Anarchists "trust" humanity more than we should. This cannot be further from the truth, we in fact see humans as morally questionable creatures. The reason why we place so much emphasis in having everyone socially equal in both status and creed, is so that there is very little chance that someone will begin to exploit others out of corruption. The reason why Anarchists advocate economical equality is to prevent individuals from succumbing to greed and hording the wealth of the world to themselves. 

 

Now to answer this quote: "When a government dosn't work, the ideology may have a hand in it, but more offten than not it's the people involved."

 

This statement screams "I am just doing my job" a statement that many individuals have used to justify their brutal actions. And I am glad to see that their is someone smart enough to have a sense of interest in the psychology of humans, so I will applaud you for making this statement. 

 

This is basically the answer to your statement: 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

 

"The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. They measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience." 

 

In other words, humans are not only unable to stay pure in positions of power, but we are also gullible towards others who have a higher stature than us, because we believe that our actions are just an extension of the authoritative figures. 

[Soulless Watcher]

This is basically the answer to your statement: 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

 

"The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. They measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience." 

 

In other words, humans are not only unable to stay pure in positions of power, but we are also gullible towards others who have a higher stature than us, because we believe that our actions are just an extension of the authoritative figures. 

Wouldn't an Anarchist system simply replace the head of the "hierarchy" with the "popular opinion"? Just as someone would change their opinion to match someone in power, wouldn't someone simply change their opinion to match everyone else? I suppose there wouldn't be a "individual" in power to become corrupt, but what about the distributors of information? A well known or particuarly charismatic anchorman or reporter could fill the roll of a authority figure to the masses, even without meaning to. Their particular biases could sway "popular opinion" to match their own ideas.

[Orcka]

Wouldn't an Anarchist system simply replace the head of the "hierarchy" with the "popular opinion"? Just as someone would change their opinion to match someone in power, wouldn't someone simply change their opinion to match everyone else? I suppose there wouldn't be a "individual" in power to become corrupt, but what about the distributors of information? A well known or particuarly charismatic anchorman or reporter could fill the roll of a authority figure to the masses, even without meaning to. Their particular biases could sway "popular opinion" to match their own ideas.

 

To be honest that is based on a lot of assumptions. 

 

For this I believe the general consensus is to follow along the lines of dialectical materialism where over time through discourse and debate we reach ethical and philosophical conclusions as to what is the most "right".

 

Remember, you cannot compare today's social system to an Anarchist society, especially since an Anarchist society cannot be achieved without the masses working together. It seems ironic to work so hard in cooperation and achieving this goal, but then "popular opinion" will somehow shift into a different direction. 

[Orcka]

 

You say this like it's a bad thing.

 

 

If the 67 richest people in the world hold the same amount of wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest, leaving countless of people to starve to death, then yes it is a demonstrably horrific thing.  

[Darklord Rooke]

If the 67 richest people in the world hold the same amount of wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest, leaving countless of people to starve to death, then yes it is a demonstrably horrific thing.  

 

A cynic would say the world is overpopulated in any case, and this overpopulation is causing significant environmental damage to both other species and the planet itself. 10 billion animals are killed every year for food, where's your tears for them? Keeping the population at the current level means more animals must be slaughtered to feed them. When overpopulation occurs in animals we cull them to keep the balance, and feel little remorse over it, but suddenly different standards apply to people?  Everything dies; it's the way of the world. 

 

It's also the rich, and more importantly the desire to be rich and powerful which is one of the major reasons for growth over the past countless years, decades, and centuries, granting us the ability to live in the debauched comfort I am currently enjoying. So I would say whether it's a 'good' or 'bad' thing depends on your perspective. Just because somebody is 'harmed' by an action doesn't necessarily mean an action is 'bad'. 

[Orcka]

A cynic would say the world is overpopulated in any case, and this overpopulation is causing significant environmental damage to both other species and the planet itself. 10 billion animals are killed every year for food, where's your tears for them? Keeping the population at the current level means more animals must be slaughtered to feed them. When overpopulation occurs in animals we cull them to keep the balance, and feel little remorse over it, but suddenly different standards apply to people?  Everything dies; it's the way of the world. 

 

It's also the rich, and more importantly the desire to be rich and powerful which is one of the major reasons for growth over the past countless years, decades, and centuries, granting us the ability to live in the debauched comfort I am currently enjoying. So I would say whether it's a 'good' or 'bad' thing depends on your perspective. Just because somebody is 'harmed' by an action doesn't necessarily mean an action is 'bad'. 

 

 

That is one of the most sickening things I have ever heard. You think that there is justification for billions of people suffering from starvation and famine as a form of "cleansing" for overpopulation? You think that their deaths are necessary, while the rich sit on their asses and horde the wealth of the world for themselves? Every economist would agree, the beating heart of every economy is the working class, absolutely nothing in human history would have progressed without them, the rich only bask in their "privatized" glory and take the credit for themselves. For instance: Steve Jobs does not make your Iphone, they are made by countless of Chinese workers on 12 hours shifts who are so exhausted that they actually fall asleep on there assembly line, causing major accidents.

 

The reason why we are not moving on to more renewable resources like solar, is because oil is one of the most profitable businesses in the world, after all you cannot monopolize the sun. 

 

The drive of progress is meaningless if it only benefits the few, progress to get as much oil out of the ground as possible is progressing humanity forward? Yea, such progress, all of those lung cancer victims must of really enjoyed the "progress" of the industrial revolution. I'm sure the Cambodian silicon miners enjoy their time digging in the baking heat to help make the processor for your computer. I'm sure Simoleons enjoy having their banks stained with pollution for the benefit of "progress" waste dumping right?   

 

And no, the reason why you are enjoying the comfort of you home, is not because the rich have "progressed" society forward, it's because of inventors, scientists, agriculturalists, engineers, constructors, doctors, basically everyone who worked their asses off in the labor front of innovation. The reason why you are not being exploited to the maximum potential of the capitalist machine is because of socialists/progressives like myself who went against the exploitation of workers. By all means, lets see how far you will last in a capitalist system without something like the minimum wage, or workers rights, let's see how much you will enjoy "progress" then. 

 

So no I don't find justification for millions of people to starve to death, just so the rich can sit on their high horse. 

 

And what is this idea of "we kill billions of animals every year" have to do with your statement? We kill plants and animals to eat, it's not rocket science, however, I would argue that corporations waste the majority of their food to generate as much profit as possible. For example, McDonalds wastes 60% of the food they buy and refuses to give the leftovers of the day to the homeless. How is this justifiable again? Based on your argument, doesn't this mean that we should try to STOP the food corporations from wasting food to prevent starvation? No, no, wait, we obviously need to purge the poor, why do they have to be so hungry all the time, why can't they be a middle class citizen of a first world country like me? /s 

 

So no, killing plants/animals is not the same as killing people for greedy individuals who want to make an extra buck. 

 

Before you respond to me, I highly recommend watching the video that links to the first comment you responded to, since It's obvious that you missed the "why" factor in my statement:

 

 

[Darklord Rooke]

That is one of the most sickening things I have ever heard. 

 

I'm really not interested in what you find sickening. I suppose I could fake interest, but that would involve manipulating many facial muscles and making sympathetic noises, that in turn takes effort, and that in turn goes against my creed. Sorry.

 

You think that there is justification for billions of people suffering from starvation and famine as a form of "cleansing" for overpopulation? You think that their deaths are necessary

 

Overpopulation is a definite problem, and there’s a clear upside to a cull, yes. It would also be consistent with ideologies we already hold, and practices we already put into practice, only we target different living creatures. The upside of culling is not in dispute, it's a fact that the planet will be better off, other living creatures will be better off, and even our own species will be better off. Whether it’s the ‘humane’ thing to do is the key question, but what’s ‘humane’ shifts from person to person and from topic to topic. It seems to be an inconsistent principle which at times promotes the idea that human life is sacred, but every other life is not. And at these moments it defies logic.

 

But that's not necessarily what I think. I am also guilty of that pesty thing called 'emotion', but I recognise that it's not logical. Culling people makes sense, and there's clearly a ton of benefits, so it can't objectively be called 'bad' or even 'horrific', it all depends on perspective. 

 

while the rich sit on their asses and horde the wealth of the world for themselves? 

 

I think the idea that the rich ‘sit on their arses’ is a definite generalisation. Some rich people might sit on their arses just like some poor people sit on their arses, but many of the rich don’t, and quite a few change the world in ways no poor person could accomplish.

 

I also don't have anything against hoarding in general, I'm all for the mass imitation of one of the more loveable characteristics of the Dragon species.

 

Every economist would agree, the beating heart of every economy is the working class, absolutely nothing in human history would have progressed without them, 

 

Sure, the working class is the driver of every economy, that’s not really in dispute, but have you ever wondered why the working class in very socialist countries, like past China, never actually accomplished much compared to the working class in Western countries? China’s becoming rich as it slowly does away with their Communist (recent) past, one piece at a time. Communism and socialism has jokingly been said to have been an American conspiracy to keep the Chinese down. What progress did China give to the world while it was poor, what progress is it accomplishing now that it’s becoming richer? What contribution did the working class make when they were poor? Was China socialist or anarchistic when they invented the oddities which change the world and drove civilisation forward an age ago? 

 

Like most things in life, it's not the 'what' but the 'how' which makes the difference. 

 

The reason why we are not moving on to more renewable resources like solar, is because oil is one of the most profitable businesses in the world, after all you cannot monopolize the sun. 

 

The opportunity for profit won't disappear with renewable resources, they'd just shift, to batteries for example. Most renewable sources aren’t efficient enough to actually make a go of things yet. The market is a powerful creature, and when it deems that there’s no future in oil it will turn its colossal weight into alternatives. Which is why the best mechanism to deal with increasing renewables is by using market mechanisms, but unfortunately Europe is becoming a little broke at the moment, America’s just recovering from being a little broke, and China and India are just going through their industrial revolutions and aren't rich enough to drive innovation on a large scale atm.

 

The drive of progress is meaningless if it only benefits the few, progress to get as much oil out of the ground as possible is progressing humanity forward? Yea, such progress, all of those lung cancer victims must of really enjoyed the "progress" of the industrial revolution. I'm sure the Cambodian silicon miners enjoy their time digging in the baking heat to help make the processor for your computer. I'm sure Simoleons enjoy having their banks stained with pollution for the benefit of "progress" waste dumping right?   

 

I would hardly call benefitting a billion people ‘a few.’ Progress has benefited the entirety of humanity as a species, but progress does not need to benefit every single human, or even the majority of humans, to be of net benefit to the species.

 

Indeed, health. Let’s talk about health. What’s the average age of human life in the Western world compared to 2,000 years ago? Yes there are more lung cancer victims today, but on average we live many decades longer. This is called a net boon.

 

I’m sure the Cambodian workers didn't, but the payment of workers in Cambodia is a matter for their Government. 

 

And no, the reason why you are enjoying the comfort of you home, is not because the rich have "progressed" society forward, it's because of inventors, scientists, agriculturalists, engineers, constructors, doctors, basically everyone who worked their asses off in the labor front of innovation. 

 

And who patronised the inventors to allow them to ‘invent’ stuff. Unless, of course, you think modern day inventions come from the penniless on the street. Who patronises the scientists? Agriculturists? Who funds the engineers? Who funds medical research? Do you think any of these people can afford a lab without somebody with money helping out? Money, and power, these are the things which sets wheels in motion, and if you looked back over the course of history you would realise this.

 

The reason why you are not being exploited to the maximum potential of the capitalist machine is because of socialists/progressives like myself who went against the exploitation of workers. 

 

Point to where I said socialism didn’t have a place? Everything has a balance, but unfortunately you are arguing an extreme case. A nice rule of thumb is that 'extremes are undesirable'. The world will never have time for anarchy and socialist societies, they never work in large scale and they never will. But the world will have time for socialistic principles, sure. 

 

And what is this idea of "we kill billions of animals every year" have to do with your statement? We kill plants and animals to eat, it's not rocket science, however, I would argue that corporations waste the majority of their food to generate as much profit as possible. 

 

Because you seem to think that people dying are a ‘bad’ thing. I’m saying unless you’re concerned about every creature, I reject your conclusion that it’s ‘bad’ based on logic. Furthermore, that it’s a matter of perspective and that culling the human population will actually benefit the planet and other species. So whether it's 'horrific' would depend on your perspective.

 

Based on your argument, doesn't this mean that we should try to STOP the food corporations from wasting food to prevent starvation? 

 

Less waste is definitely a good thing, just like less demand (fewer people) is definitely a good thing. Holistic solutions would call for both, I believe.

 

Before you respond to me, I highly recommend watching the video that links to the first comment you responded to, since It's obvious that you missed the "why" factor in my statement:

 

I’m very happy that you have an idol to be enthusiastic over and to look up to, everybody needs one, but I’d very much appreciate it if you wouldn't shove him down my throat. Thnx. 

[Orcka]

I'm really not interested in what you find sickening. I suppose I could fake interest, but that would involve manipulating many facial muscles and making sympathetic noises, that in turn takes effort, and that in turn goes against my creed. Sorry.

 

 

Overpopulation is a definite problem, and there’s a clear upside to a cull, yes. It would also be consistent with ideologies we already hold, and practices we already put into practice, only we target different living creatures. The upside of culling is not in dispute, it's a fact that the planet will be better off, other living creatures will be better off, and even our own species will be better off. Whether it’s the ‘humane’ thing to do is the key question, but what’s ‘humane’ shifts from person to person and from topic to topic. It seems to be an inconsistent principle which at times promotes the idea that human life is sacred, but every other life is not. And at these moments it defies logic.

 

But that's not necessarily what I think. I am also guilty of that pesty thing called 'emotion', but I recognise that it's not logical. Culling people makes sense, and there's clearly a ton of benefits, so it can't objectively be called 'bad' or even 'horrific', it all depends on perspective. 

 

 

I think the idea that the rich ‘sit on their arses’ is a definite generalisation. Some rich people might sit on their arses just like some poor people sit on their arses, but many of the rich don’t, and quite a few change the world in ways no poor person could accomplish.

 

I also don't have anything against hoarding in general, I'm all for the mass imitation of one of the more loveable characteristics of the Dragon species.

 

 

Sure, the working class is the driver of every economy, that’s not really in dispute, but have you ever wondered why the working class in very socialist countries, like past China, never actually accomplished much compared to the working class in Western countries? China’s becoming rich as it slowly does away with their Communist (recent) past, one piece at a time. Communism and socialism has jokingly been said to have been an American conspiracy to keep the Chinese down. What progress did China give to the world while it was poor, what progress is it accomplishing now that it’s becoming richer? What contribution did the working class make when they were poor? Was China socialist or anarchistic when they invented the oddities which change the world and drove civilisation forward an age ago? 

 

Like most things in life, it's not the 'what' but the 'how' which makes the difference. 

 

 

The opportunity for profit won't disappear with renewable resources, they'd just shift, to batteries for example. Most renewable sources aren’t efficient enough to actually make a go of things yet. The market is a powerful creature, and when it deems that there’s no future in oil it will turn its colossal weight into alternatives. Which is why the best mechanism to deal with increasing renewables is by using market mechanisms, but unfortunately Europe is becoming a little broke at the moment, America’s just recovering from being a little broke, and China and India are just going through their industrial revolutions and aren't rich enough to drive innovation on a large scale atm.

 

 

I would hardly call benefitting a billion people ‘a few.’ Progress has benefited the entirety of humanity as a species, but progress does not need to benefit every single human, or even the majority of humans, to be of net benefit to the species.

 

Indeed, health. Let’s talk about health. What’s the average age of human life in the Western world compared to 2,000 years ago? Yes there are more lung cancer victims today, but on average we live many decades longer. This is called a net boon.

 

I’m sure the Cambodian workers didn't, but the payment of workers in Cambodia is a matter for their Government. 

 

 

And who patronised the inventors to allow them to ‘invent’ stuff. Unless, of course, you think modern day inventions come from the penniless on the street. Who patronises the scientists? Agriculturists? Who funds the engineers? Who funds medical research? Do you think any of these people can afford a lab without somebody with money helping out? Money, and power, these are the things which sets wheels in motion, and if you looked back over the course of history you would realise this.

 

 

Point to where I said socialism didn’t have a place? Everything has a balance, but unfortunately you are arguing an extreme case. A nice rule of thumb is that 'extremes are undesirable'. The world will never have time for anarchy and socialist societies, they never work in large scale and they never will. But the world will have time for socialistic principles, sure. 

 

 

Because you seem to think that people dying are a ‘bad’ thing. I’m saying unless you’re concerned about every creature, I reject your conclusion that it’s ‘bad’ based on logic. Furthermore, that it’s a matter of perspective and that culling the human population will actually benefit the planet and other species. So whether it's 'horrific' would depend on your perspective.

 

 

Less waste is definitely a good thing, just like less demand (fewer people) is definitely a good thing. Holistic solutions would call for both, I believe.

 

 

I’m very happy that you have an idol to be enthusiastic over and to look up to, everybody needs one, but I’d very much appreciate it if you wouldn't shove him down my throat. Thnx. 

 

1.) I am a straightforward person, if I find something that pushes my button I will tell you straight away. I'm sure you can take a bit of criticism. 

 

2.) If overpopulation is such a defining factor, why is the driving force of progress focused on taking as much oil out of the ground, or producing the most cheapest touchscreen phone? Again, this also goes back to what I sated about food corporations wasting the food they buy for maximum profit. So yes, basic morality tells me that if people are being killed for the benefits of the few, then I do not find purging to be very benefiting to the human race as a whole. 

 

3.) The purpose of the statement is to explain how the rich do not work to the equivalence of what they earn. If a mine owner generates 80% of the profit from gold deposits, but the miners only make 20% out of paychecks from the owner, doesn't that mean that the mine owner gains something that he didn't physically worked for? 

 

When countless of dollars are dumped into off shore bank accounts, not helping circulating the economy, it becomes a huge problem. I'm sure the Dwarves from The Hobbit appreciate Smaug for hording the riches of their people. Such a lovable creature! /s

 

4.) China isn't considered very socialist first of all, the only aspects it holds that are considered remotely socialist is health care, and food preservation tactics. Remember, China is only socialist in name. But a socialist country that allows it's people to be used by entrepreneurs for cheap labor, doesn't seem very fitting to the name.

 

The reason why western countries have developed descent living conditions is because of exploitation from other countries around the world for the past 500 years. The driving force of capitalism is irrelevant if you do not have the resources to boast it. Ironically, it is not the workers from 1st world countries that made western countries the way they are today, but the workers from 3rd and 2nd world countries that entrepreneurs love to exploit for cheap labor.

 

5.) Oil is the driving force of capital because it is easy to monopolize. If now, a critical moment in history, when we have to desperately find more renewable power sources to prevent pollution of the Earth, oil is still after 100 years the most important source of energy? This is a perfect example how the market hinders progress, if their is no incentive for profit, even when the Earth is choking on greenhouse gasses, even when people are dieing from water supply pollution, even when the carbonate level of the oceans are increasing. If their is no incentive for profit, the human race might go extinct before the market "shifts" into other sources of energy. 

 

Ironically towards your statement, China is one of the forefronts of renewable energy. Mostly because they don't have the luxury to place oil rigs around the world: 

 

 

India also doesn't nearly use as much oil/coal as the US does (and yet they overpopulate us 3 to 1). They mostly base their economy of other resources like cotton and rice. 

 

6.) The mortality rate of humanity plummeted during the middle ages, and the industrial revolution in Europe. Both are considered unsanitary working conditions and is the major reason why are life spans were so low. Today, for humans in first word countries to prevent stress deficits and super bugs from killing off large quantities, there is a huge market for anti depressants and antibiotics. These do not "solve" the problems but instead mask them, to exploit the work-front as much as possible without having them continuously dyeing from living in crowded cities and factories. In fact, in countries that do not posses crowded living conditions, the age discrepancy is significantly different. Even 3rd world countries posses the same statistics, the problem is that they are not given basic health care and thus have a low child mortality rate. 

 

 

7.) Ironically, you just stated exactly why the market hinders progress. Many scientists have died penniless because their original investors saw no benefit from their work. Possibly the greatest historical context I can find is the Nichole Tesla, and how his inventions were never used simply because of the fact that anyone could use them (no monopoly, no profit after all).  

 

Wouldn't it have been nice for inventors to change the world themselves, instead of constantly kissing the feet of the entrepreneurs for their work to develop some kind of stain to history? 

 

8.) The Spanish Revolution and Historical Iceland are two counter examples to your statement. And I'm pretty sure Right wing ideology isn't very "balanced", what you are referring to is called "centralism", which is nearly non existent in the 21st century. The world is mostly dominated by capitalism, and simply because it is the most "common" doesn't justify it's actions.

 

9.) Because basic morality tells me to place humans above other species. I am not saying that we should kill off animals for the hell of it (after all, this will bite us in the ass later), but I do care more about people dyeing for unjustifiable reasons than other species dyeing for human consumption. Priority is key. So I would choose "preservation of resources" over "purging" any day, simply because basic morality tells me so. 

 

10.) The reason why I was referring to the video is because of this statement: "You say this like it's a bad  thing." Even when I stated specifically: "I would recommend watching this, it is a video explains how individual self concern harms other people: ". If you wanted an answer to your statement, all you had to do was watch it. 

 

​One final entry for you however; it is obviously easy for you to find justification for the purging of humanity, because you are not on the purging list (well, not YET at least). Let that sink in for a minute........

[Darklord Rooke]

1.) I am a straightforward person, if I find something that pushes my button I will tell you straight away. I'm sure you can take a bit of criticism. 

 

2.) If overpopulation is such a defining factor, why is the driving force of progress focused on taking as much oil out of the ground, or producing the most cheapest touchscreen phone? Again, this also goes back to what I sated about food corporations wasting the food they buy for maximum profit. So yes, basic morality tells me that if people are being killed for the benefits of the few, then I do not find purging to be very benefiting to the human race as a whole. 

 

3.) The purpose of the statement is to explain how the rich do not work to the equivalence of what they earn. If a mine owner generates 80% of the profit from gold deposits, but the miners only make 20% out of paychecks from the owner, doesn't that mean that the mine owner gains something that he didn't physically worked for? 

 

When countless of dollars are dumped into off shore bank accounts, not helping circulating the economy, it becomes a huge problem. I'm sure the Dwarves from The Hobbit appreciate Smaug for hording the riches of their people. Such a lovable creature! /s

 

4.) China isn't considered very socialist first of all, the only aspects it holds that are considered remotely socialist is health care, and food preservation tactics. Remember, China is only socialist in name. But a socialist country that allows it's people to be used by entrepreneurs for cheap labor, doesn't seem very fitting to the name.

 

The reason why western countries have developed descent living conditions is because of exploitation from other countries around the world for the past 500 years. The driving force of capitalism is irrelevant if you do not have the resources to boast it. Ironically, it is not the workers from 1st world countries that made western countries the way they are today, but the workers from 3rd and 2nd world countries that entrepreneurs love to exploit for cheap labor.

 

5.) Oil is the driving force of capital because it is easy to monopolize. If now, a critical moment in history, when we have to desperately find more renewable power sources to prevent pollution of the Earth, oil is still after 100 years the most important source of energy? This is a perfect example how the market hinders progress, if their is no incentive for profit, even when the Earth is choking on greenhouse gasses, even when people are dieing from water supply pollution, even when the carbonate level of the oceans are increasing. If their is no incentive for profit, the human race might go extinct before the market "shifts" into other sources of energy. 

 

Ironically towards your statement, China is one of the forefronts of renewable energy. Mostly because they don't have the luxury to place oil rigs around the world: 

 

India also doesn't nearly use as much oil/coal as the US does (and yet they overpopulate us 3 to 1). They mostly base their economy of other resources like cotton and rice. 

 

6.) The mortality rate of humanity plummeted during the middle ages, and the industrial revolution in Europe. Both are considered unsanitary working conditions and is the major reason why are life spans were so low. Today, for humans in first word countries to prevent stress deficits and super bugs from killing off large quantities, there is a huge market for anti depressants and antibiotics. These do not "solve" the problems but instead mask them, to exploit the work-front as much as possible without having them continuously dyeing from living in crowded cities and factories. In fact, in countries that do not posses crowded living conditions, the age discrepancy is significantly different. Even 3rd world countries posses the same statistics, the problem is that they are not given basic health care and thus have a low child mortality rate. 

 

7.) Ironically, you just stated exactly why the market hinders progress. Many scientists have died penniless because their original investors saw no benefit from their work. Possibly the greatest historical context I can find is the Nichole Tesla, and how his inventions were never used simply because of the fact that anyone could use them (no monopoly, no profit after all).  

 

Wouldn't it have been nice for inventors to change the world themselves, instead of constantly kissing the feet of the entrepreneurs for their work to develop some kind of stain to history? 

 

8.) The Spanish Revolution and Historical Iceland are two counter examples to your statement. And I'm pretty sure Right wing ideology isn't very "balanced", what you are referring to is called "centralism", which is nearly non existent in the 21st century. The world is mostly dominated by capitalism, and simply because it is the most "common" doesn't justify it's actions.

 

9.) Because basic morality tells me to place humans above other species. I am not saying that we should kill off animals for the hell of it (after all, this will bite us in the ass later), but I do care more about people dyeing for unjustifiable reasons than other species dyeing for human consumption. Priority is key. So I would choose "preservation of resources" over "purging" any day, simply because basic morality tells me so. 

 

10.) The reason why I was referring to the video is because of this statement: "You say this like it's a bad  thing." Even when I stated specifically: "I would recommend watching this, it is a video explains how individual self concern harms other people: ". If you wanted an answer to your statement, all you had to do was watch it. 

 

​One final entry for you however; it is obviously easy for you to find justification for the purging of humanity, because you are not on the purging list (well, not YET at least). Let that sink in for a minute........

 

1 - Sure, knock yourself out. I like straightforwardness much more than not knowing what people think.

 

2 - Overpopulation has nothing to do with humanity’s tendency to take as much oil from the ground as we can, or our drive in producing the cheapest touchscreen. Connecting the two issues (three I suppose) requires quite the leap of logic. But overpopulation is probably second only to ‘climate change’ as the thing which scientists believe needs to be addressed now. In fact, over 100 scientific academies gave an ultimatum to World leaders a few years ago, that we risk ‘potentially catastrophic implications for human well-being’ unless overpopulation is addressed.

 

Overpopulation is tied to over-consumption, to resource depletion (including deforestation as well as food, animals becoming extinct, plants and crops becoming extinct, less water to drink,) to pollution (the gases we emit, the gases cows emit, landfills and running out of space to dump stuff, pesticides, climate change.) All the little nasties we believe will come back to bite us in a few years time. It’s sometimes called the biggest environmental problem we face, it competes with climate change for first spot. I should point out that a few scientists have also floated the notion of a ‘cull’, although it’s quite damaging to their reputation so don’t expect them to do so en masse. So, if culling people benefits humanity, every other species on the planet, and the planet itself, it’s incorrect in the extreme to say killing people would ‘benefit only a few.’ It would, in fact, benefit everyone, every thing, and the planet… unless you’re one of the people killed. Then not so much.

 

But I wouldn’t worry, this is all hypothetical. If we ever became overpopulated to the stage where the planet was struggling to support us, most people will die out anyway through the inability to feed themselves, and malnutrition. So, in that sense, a cull wouldn’t even be necessary. I wonder when we’ll hit that marker…

 

3 - Whether the rich work to an equivalence of what they earn is something I’m, again, not concerned with. The world is an unequal place, it’s not about justice or ‘right and wrong’ or any of that ideological stuff. Good luck with it, if you succeed I’ll be interested as an observer, but it’s not my bag baby and I doubt you will succeed to the extreme you wish.

 

Ah, tax evasion IS a big problem true. Not because it’s ‘unfair’ but because the Governments need that revenue. And no, I’m not on the Dwarves or the Hobbits side in this. Smaug is both awesome AND cute :3. Life is about struggle, if you want your riches back then take them.

 

4 - Yes, exploitation… another fact of life unfortunately. There will always be poor people, and there will always be the exploitation of poor people. Mega companies support, and engage in this practice on an atrocious scale. Your statement hypes the impact 3rd world workers have made on capitalist societies, though.

 

5 - You haven’t actually thought your statement through. Oil is important not because it’s easy to monetise, but because we depend on it for energy. It is also not the driving force of capital or capitalism.

 

Yes, oil is still the most important source of energy not because it’s easy to monetise, but because the world has rejected nuclear energy as being ‘too dangerous’. Otherwise nuclear would be the most important source of energy. Because we’ve done away with this step, we’ve now turned our attention in developing renewables but that does take time. If you’re impatient to clear up the atmosphere, nuclear still remains a viable option. Everybody’s scared of it though, especially after Fukashima.

 

The market doesn’t actually hinder progress, not in this instance anyway, blame the anti-nuclear industry for it. Let’s put it this way, compared to nuclear coal is incredibly inefficient. There’s no reason to stick with it, not even financially, and the market certainly doesn’t dictate it either. However, every time somebody tries to build a nuclear power plant, there’s a massive outcry.

 

China’s the forefront because their hand has been forced due to smog related issues. Supplying a billion people with energy from coal powered plants will bury them in it, and thus it’s not feasible. Thousands die every day from air pollution problems in China.

 

India’s coal use will explode in the future… is what I’d say if they weren’t importing tons of Uranium from Ozzie-land.

 

6 - I think you’re going to have a hard time convincing anybody that the ‘unsanitary working conditions’ was the major factor for the mortality rate in the middle ages. Sure it was A factor. Like the lack of plumbing was also a contributor, which was an advancement in technology. Lack of medicine to combat diseases too, or indeed a lack of any credible health system at all, in fact. Food treatment, no refridgeration, no great heating systems, and so on.

 

7 - The market actually doesn’t hinder progress in this instance. Sure, not EVERY inventor or innovator will be able to get funding, that’s just being unrealistic, but a great number do. Innovations which push society forward tend to make a lot of money, which is something the Market encourages. The rubbish ideas tend to fall through, the good ones tend to rise, but obviously that isn’t always the case.

 

Innovators changing the world themselves is a nice idea which would never work in practice. Every person in the world has an idea they think will be brilliant, the problem is few actually are. The problem then is that innovations cost money, and funding all of them is not feasible. So we have the situation where people need to choose which ideas will be best and which will not. You think the market is a bad choice, but at least they aren’t politicians (who tend to be clueless.) In a number of Communist States, we had that marvellous invention which was the leather car! MMMmmmm, I wish I was driving a Velorex down the highway at 100 miles an hour.

 

The best decider of great innovation is currently the market, it’s not ideal but nobody’s come up with a way which is better…yet. And the idea that innovators can work for themselves en masse without kissing somebody’s feet is unrealistic. Nice, but will never happen.

 

8 - The Spanish Revolution doesn't argue what I'm saying at all. How long did anarchy last in Spain? It’s one thing to tear down a country because you're unsatisfied with your lot in life, quite another to rebuild it in a particular image. Medieval Iceland was anarcho-capitalist, and even then it failed.

 

9 - Which is something I find no logical reason for. 

 

10 - I’m not in denial that self-concern harms people, I actually know quite a bit about it. I am a realist however, and acknowledge that a certain amount of harming and pain is necessary.

 

And lastly, you’re preaching things I’ve already thought about. But my anger at being on the purging list would be an emotional response, not a logical one. The justification would remain, I would just be yelling that they purge my useless neighbour, and not my fair and charming self. If you meant for that statement to shock me, then ... eh. Maybe it's too early in the morning for me to be shocked, I'm not usually very awake at these times.

[Orcka]

1 - Sure, knock yourself out. I like straightforwardness much more than not knowing what people think.

 

2 - Overpopulation has nothing to do with humanity’s tendency to take as much oil from the ground as we can, or our drive in producing the cheapest touchscreen. Connecting the two issues (three I suppose) requires quite the leap of logic. But overpopulation is probably second only to ‘climate change’ as the thing which scientists believe needs to be addressed now. In fact, over 100 scientific academies gave an ultimatum to World leaders a few years ago, that we risk ‘potentially catastrophic implications for human well-being’ unless overpopulation is addressed.

 

Overpopulation is tied to over-consumption, to resource depletion (including deforestation as well as food, animals becoming extinct, plants and crops becoming extinct, less water to drink,) to pollution (the gases we emit, the gases cows emit, landfills and running out of space to dump stuff, pesticides, climate change.) All the little nasties we believe will come back to bite us in a few years time. It’s sometimes called the biggest environmental problem we face, it competes with climate change for first spot. I should point out that a few scientists have also floated the notion of a ‘cull’, although it’s quite damaging to their reputation so don’t expect them to do so en masse. So, if culling people benefits humanity, every other species on the planet, and the planet itself, it’s incorrect in the extreme to say killing people would ‘benefit only a few.’ It would, in fact, benefit everyone, every thing, and the planet… unless you’re one of the people killed. Then not so much.

 

But I wouldn’t worry, this is all hypothetical. If we ever became overpopulated to the stage where the planet was struggling to support us, most people will die out anyway through the inability to feed themselves, and malnutrition. So, in that sense, a cull wouldn’t even be necessary. I wonder when we’ll hit that marker…

 

3 - Whether the rich work to an equivalence of what they earn is something I’m, again, not concerned with. The world is an unequal place, it’s not about justice or ‘right and wrong’ or any of that ideological stuff. Good luck with it, if you succeed I’ll be interested as an observer, but it’s not my bag baby and I doubt you will succeed to the extreme you wish.

 

Ah, tax evasion IS a big problem true. Not because it’s ‘unfair’ but because the Governments need that revenue. And no, I’m not on the Dwarves or the Hobbits side in this. Smaug is both awesome AND cute :3. Life is about struggle, if you want your riches back then take them.

 

4 - Yes, exploitation… another fact of life unfortunately. There will always be poor people, and there will always be the exploitation of poor people. Mega companies support, and engage in this practice on an atrocious scale. Your statement hypes the impact 3rd world workers have made on capitalist societies, though.

 

5 - You haven’t actually thought your statement through. Oil is important not because it’s easy to monetise, but because we depend on it for energy. It is also not the driving force of capital or capitalism.

 

Yes, oil is still the most important source of energy not because it’s easy to monetise, but because the world has rejected nuclear energy as being ‘too dangerous’. Otherwise nuclear would be the most important source of energy. Because we’ve done away with this step, we’ve now turned our attention in developing renewables but that does take time. If you’re impatient to clear up the atmosphere, nuclear still remains a viable option. Everybody’s scared of it though, especially after Fukashima.

 

The market doesn’t actually hinder progress, not in this instance anyway, blame the anti-nuclear industry for it. Let’s put it this way, compared to nuclear coal is incredibly inefficient. There’s no reason to stick with it, not even financially, and the market certainly doesn’t dictate it either. However, every time somebody tries to build a nuclear power plant, there’s a massive outcry.

 

China’s the forefront because their hand has been forced due to smog related issues. Supplying a billion people with energy from coal powered plants will bury them in it, and thus it’s not feasible. Thousands die every day from air pollution problems in China.

 

India’s coal use will explode in the future… is what I’d say if they weren’t importing tons of Uranium from Ozzie-land.

 

6 - I think you’re going to have a hard time convincing anybody that the ‘unsanitary working conditions’ was the major factor for the mortality rate in the middle ages. Sure it was A factor. Like the lack of plumbing was also a contributor, which was an advancement in technology. Lack of medicine to combat diseases too, or indeed a lack of any credible health system at all, in fact. Food treatment, no refridgeration, no great heating systems, and so on.

 

7 - The market actually doesn’t hinder progress in this instance. Sure, not EVERY inventor or innovator will be able to get funding, that’s just being unrealistic, but a great number do. Innovations which push society forward tend to make a lot of money, which is something the Market encourages. The rubbish ideas tend to fall through, the good ones tend to rise, but obviously that isn’t always the case.

 

Innovators changing the world themselves is a nice idea which would never work in practice. Every person in the world has an idea they think will be brilliant, the problem is few actually are. The problem then is that innovations cost money, and funding all of them is not feasible. So we have the situation where people need to choose which ideas will be best and which will not. You think the market is a bad choice, but at least they aren’t politicians (who tend to be clueless.) In a number of Communist States, we had that marvellous invention which was the leather car! MMMmmmm, I wish I was driving a Velorex down the highway at 100 miles an hour.

 

The best decider of great innovation is currently the market, it’s not ideal but nobody’s come up with a way which is better…yet. And the idea that innovators can work for themselves en masse without kissing somebody’s feet is unrealistic. Nice, but will never happen.

 

8 - The Spanish Revolution doesn't argue what I'm saying at all. How long did anarchy last in Spain? It’s one thing to tear down a country because you're unsatisfied with your lot in life, quite another to rebuild it in a particular image. Medieval Iceland was anarcho-capitalist, and even then it failed.

 

9 - Which is something I find no logical reason for. 

 

10 - I’m not in denial that self-concern harms people, I actually know quite a bit about it. I am a realist however, and acknowledge that a certain amount of harming and pain is necessary.

 

And lastly, you’re preaching things I’ve already thought about. But my anger at being on the purging list would be an emotional response, not a logical one. The justification would remain, I would just be yelling that they purge my useless neighbour, and not my fair and charming self. If you meant for that statement to shock me, then ... eh. Maybe it's too early in the morning for me to be shocked, I'm not usually very awake at these times.

 

I will have things to do until Thursday, so I won't be able to respond thoroughly until then.

 

However, many of my arguments are parallel with this article:

 

https://libcom.org/library/%E2%80%9Coverpopulation%E2%80%9D-letting-capitalism-hook-manchester-no-borders

 

In short it states this: The "overpopulation" myth has never truly been indicated or proven by scientists. In short, it is simply an excuse to provide alteration motives. You must understand that "overpopulation" is only a problem under the capitalist system, because less and less resources can be horded by entrepreneurs, the higher the population is. We would not have problems with "overpopulation" if we effectively shared and preserve important resources like food and energy (this is of course equivalent to my ideology of socialism). In fact, your argument is is basically "Neo-Malthusian" the philosophy based on the works and writings of Thomas Malthus a Eugenics philosopher who considered things like famine, war, poverty to not only be justifiable, but a NECESSITY for the survival of humanity (you probably are unconscious of this, but because of how impactful his writing were back in the 19th century and even today, you ARE probably using his argument based on popular media). Seems ironic that "overpopulation" was first introduced by a cleric of the Church of England and not by an actual scientist.

 

I personally consider the "overpopulation" argument proposed by Malthus to be extremely outdated and is countered by many other social factors like immigration, the development of things like agriculture and medicine, and how resources are funneled into the hands of a few individuals. 

 

If you wish to learn more, please read the article, it provides many references and citations to uphold it's argument. It also goes into detail and counter arguments against Malthus.  

 

Another writing that also goes against the Malthus philosophy is from Murray Bookchin (this one goes into more extensive detail both historically and socially, so be warned, it is a MUCH longer read, in other words an extensive and more detailed version of the previous article I mentioned) his arguments are also very compelling:

 

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-the-population-myth

[Darklord Rooke]

I will have things to do until Thursday, so I won't be able to respond thoroughly until then.

 

Good luck with your work, take it easy, and most importantly… beware of dragons

 

 Seems ironic that "overpopulation" was first introduced by a cleric of the Church of England and not by an actual scientist

 

Not ironic, just coincidental. Take enough 'stab in the darks' as the Church does (or did,) and every so often you score a hit. 

 

There's no question that there's an upper limit of people the Earth can sustainably hold, it's merely a question of what that number is. The idea that overpopulation is an 'outdated' argument is not correct, as we are always heading toward that number (assuming we haven't passed it.) So it actually becomes more relevant as time passes. And considering our population increased by a billion people in the last 14 years, the overpopulation argument is QUICKLY gaining relevancy.

 

The exact number of humans that can populate the planet in a sustainable way is one which fluctuates however. Scientists have said 4 billion, and they've also said 16 billion, so we're in the zone.

[Orcka]

 

Not ironic, just coincidental. Take enough 'stab in the darks' as the Church does (or did,) and every so often you score a hit. 

 

There's no question that there's an upper limit of people the Earth can sustainably hold, it's merely a question of what that number is. The idea that overpopulation is an 'outdated' argument is not correct, as we are always heading toward that number (assuming we haven't passed it.) So it actually becomes more relevant as time passes. And considering our population increased by a billion people in the last 14 years, the overpopulation argument is QUICKLY gaining relevancy.

 

The exact number of humans that can populate the planet in a sustainable way is one which fluctuates however. Scientists have said 4 billion, and they've also said 16 billion, so we're in the zone.

 

If you think this statement is true, then you shouldn't have any problems refuting the arguments of the two authors I have posted. 

[Darklord Rooke]

If you think this statement is true, then you shouldn't have any problems refuting the arguments of the two authors I have posted. 

 

I don't have any problems arguing against both such authors. This argument's an old one, and the arguments of the revered men you've posted aren't nearly as watertight, or as impressive, as you think. However...

 

author number one is 'No Borders Manchester', who just fling out a bunch of statements they've grabbed from other sources, and is fairly light on explanation. I find many of the explanations they have offered to be quite half-assed. Secondly, if I start replying to every single article you throw at me two things will happen. 1) The cycle will never end, because it's extremely easy to grab blog posts from the interweb and chuck them at me and 2) it takes a modicum of time to respond to each one, which means you're having an extremely easy time of things, and I'm having to actually think and reply. And to hell with that. Whilst I'm a fan of a disproportionate work system, I'm only a fan when it's ME being given the easy ride. In other words, I'm not responding to a 3,000 word essay just so you can fling another one at me once I'm done.

 

If you're busy, come back on thursday and paraphrase the pertinent points then, in your own words. I'm having a discussion with you, not you and the 5,000 people you admire on the internet.

[Orcka]

I don't have any problems arguing against both such authors. This argument's an old one, and the arguments of the revered men you've posted aren't nearly as watertight, or as impressive, as you think. However...

 

author number one is 'No Borders Manchester', who just fling out a bunch of statements they've grabbed from other sources, and is fairly light on explanation. I find many of the explanations they have offered to be quite half-assed. Secondly, if I start replying to every single article you throw at me two things will happen. 1) The cycle will never end, because it's extremely easy to grab blog posts from the interweb and chuck them at me and 2) it takes a modicum of time to respond to each one, which means you're having an extremely easy time of things, and I'm having to actually think and reply. And to hell with that. Whilst I'm a fan of a disproportionate work system, I'm only a fan when it's ME being given the easy ride. In other words, I'm not responding to a 3,000 word essay just so you can fling another one at me once I'm done.

 

If you're busy, come back on thursday and paraphrase the pertinent points then, in your own words. I'm having a discussion with you, not you and the 5,000 people you admire on the internet.

 

The reason why I am giving you the sources, is because in the last 3 posts we have traded arguments on is just you denying all of my statements and proposing your own conclusions without much back up statements.  

 

For example I have stated multiple times why capitalist enterprises only benefit progress if it benefits the market, thus stagnating important innovations like renewable energy. And yet, you stated twice that this is false with no explanation to back up your statement. 

 

Another statement that seems to be repeating itself is your argument for the overpopulation hypothesis of Malthus. Once again, you do not provide evidence on how this is true. To me, the only way the hypothesis can be proven is if we conduct a global test in which every person on the planet is given a needable amount of resources to survive, and see if whether or not their will be any left over resources. However, this is not the case of the world now is it? A few individuals have a horrendous amount of resources, more than they even know what to do with. This skews the resource statistics heavily into a few individuals. 

 

To extend this, you constantly defend the rich, as if they are a "necessity" without providing your own burden of proof. I have stated multiple times that it is the workers that are the reason why you all of the commodities in your life. And you still think, that the rich somehow play a "significant" role simply because they privatize the means of production. Is it not possible for the workers to own the means of production themselves? Or maybe this is a foreign concept to you, because you never have suggested this to be a possibility. If your going to defend capitalism, at the very least explain why privatization is "better" than worker's control. 

 

The reason why I provided these links, was because that I felt that nothing I was saying was not getting thru to you. Perhaps I could provide the words of another author, someone who is better at explaining these kinds of topics, perhaps then something would click inside of you, regardless if you agree with the argument or not. It is not my job to "convince" you that Anarchy is the most justifiable way for all of humanity to follow, this you must decide on your own, it is not my right to define what you believe in. I am here to provide with you a new perspective, a new way of viewing the world. You may then do as you wish with it, either reflect or forget about what I have stated. 

 

I have stated that their is no justification for indirect/direct genocide IF their is any way we can prevent it. My opinion is that it is more important to save the lives of as many people as possible, even if it costs us marketing/progressive benefits. In other words, the lives of everyone comes first before the idea of "progress" (this is me being generous and saying that capitalism ALWAYS chooses progress over conservatism, which is not true). Of course, you might have a different perspective on this, and that is fine, but understand that simply because YOU think that your argument is sound and rational doesn't mean that it will become as easy to understand for someone like me. You must provide sources, evidence, examples, ect.... Or I will not consider your arguments. You can't assume that your arguments are always "common knowledge", perhaps to you they are but to me they are not. 

 

That being said, the articles are simply there to provide another perspective, one that may or may not help you understand the topic at hand. Because to me, it seems that you are not understanding anything I have stated so far. And no, I am not going to spam articles towards you, the only reason I would give you another link, is if the topic shifts into a different direction (from overpopulation to the cold war, for example). 

[Darklord Rooke]

Sources ey? 

 

[David Suzuki] Source: LYBIO.net

I’m going to give you a system analogous to the planet and that’s a test tube full of food for bacteria. So the test tube and food is a planet and the bacteria are us. Now, I’m going to introduce one bacteria cell in and this is going to divide every minute, that’s exponential growth. So at time zero at the beginning there is 1 cell. 1 minute, there are 2 cells. 2 minutes, there are 4 cells. 3 minutes, there are 8 cells. 4 minutes, 16 cells, that’s exponential growth. And in 60 minutes the test tube is completely packed with bacteria and there’s no food left.

 

So we have a 60-minute growth cycle. When is the test tube only half full? Well, of course, the answer is at 59 minutes, even though it’s been chugging along for 59 minutes, it’s only half full, but 1 minute later, it will be completely filled. So that means at 58 minutes, it’s 25% full, 57 minutes, it’s 12.5% full. At 55 minutes of the 60-minute cycle, it’s 3% full.

 

At 55 minutes one of the bacteria says, hey guys, I’ve been thinking, we got a problem, we got a population problem. The other bacteria would say, Jack, what the hell have you been smoking man, 97% of the test tube is empty, and we’ve been around for 55 minutes. And they’d be five minutes away from filling it.

 

So, say, bacteria are no smarter than humans at 59 minutes they go, ‘Oh my God, Jack was right! We’ve got 1 minute left, what are we going to do? Well, don’t give any money to those economists that are saying we got to keep growing all the time, give it to those scientists, so they massively inject money into the scientific community, guess what? Unless in a minute those bacterial scientist invent three new test tubes for the food that would like us finding three more planets that we can use, what happens at 60 minutes, the first test tube is full. 61 minutes, the second is full, 62 minutes, all four are full.

 

By quadrupling the amount of food and space, we buy 2 extra minutes. Our home is the biosphere. It’s fixed and finite. It can’t grow. And we’ve got to learn to live within that finite world. Every scientist I have talked to agrees with me: We’ve already passed the 59th minute.

 

The reason why I am giving you the sources, is because in the last 3 posts we have traded arguments on is just you denying all of my statements and proposing your own conclusions without much back up statements.  

 

Not how I remember things. 

 

For example I have stated multiple times why capitalist enterprises only benefit progress if it benefits the market, thus stagnating important innovations like renewable energy. And yet, you stated twice that this is false with no explanation to back up your statement. 

 

False. I have provided an explanation, you just chose to ignore it, which isn’t really my problem. As I stated above, the market’s solution to CO2 emissions was nuclear, it was the interference with market mechanisms which has lengthened the coal industries grip on things. This isn't really in question.

 

I suppose I could produce 10 or 20 articles from economists and scientists describing why the market mechanism is the best way to deal with climate change.,and increasing investment in renewables. It’s very easy for me to grab articles to cite this, the debate was just had in Australia not 2 years ago with learned people from everywhere explaining this very position. In fact, 89% of economists in Australia believe market mechanisms are the best way to increase investment in renewable energy. This was a time when Australia's Government wanted direct action, btw. It’s such a common argument that it’s not credible to state there’s no evidence or sources to back up this position. 

 

Another statement that seems to be repeating itself is your argument for the overpopulation hypothesis of Malthus. Once again, you do not provide evidence on how this is true.

 

Mainly because I do not repeat the overpopulation hypothesis of Malthus.

 

It’s a logical fallacy to dismiss the idea of overpopulation by arguing it was incorrectly claimed in the past. However, people like to do it to dismiss current arguments because they are incapable of arguing their position through logic and facts. Like the person you linked to above.

 

In times gone by scientific understanding and technology weren’t at an adequate place to calculate, or even estimate, how many people the Earth could sustainably hold. All they were able to do was observe the population increasing rapidly, observe the consequences, and make some arguments based off this. It is not surprising that these estimates were wildly off-base, but it was based off a valid observation - that the world's population was increasing at a rate which is not sustainable. Today’s scientists, however, have weighed the space needed to sustainably grow food to feed billions of people, the space needed for landfill, the effects of pollution which would result, the need for space, the effect on wildlife, the effect on fauna, the effect on oceans, and have made far more accurate observations. Then extrapolated these into guesstimates of how many people this planet could sustainably accommodate, most concluding about 10 billion. Some less, some more.

 

There are a number of factors and assumptions that have gone into these calculations, but in effect, unless technology makes an incredibly rapid and giant leap forward, in areas such as waste management and growing huge quantities of food in labs, we’re approaching the boundary if we haven't already past it.

 

Some scientists aren’t very worried because they’ve predicted the number of people in the world to decrease after 2050, others don’t share this optimistic view. At the end of the day, however, the opponents to overpopulation don’t really have much going for them which is why they continue to try and argue the past.

 

It is the consensus of most of the scientific community that overpopulation is indeed a ‘thing’. If you want to take the word of historians over such people, then that’s your problem. 

 

But all this is moot. Whether we are past the boundary of how many people the Earth can hold or not, it is an undeniable fact that the welfare of people, animals, and the planet would benefit from fewer people in the world. Less strain on resources will result in a benefit. So even if the Earth can hold 100 billion people if we share, everybody will benefit if there are fewer.

 

The world's wealth is horded by 10%, but the progress of humanity is being driven by that 10%. So, once again, I don't see the issue why people dying out from starvation is objectively a bad thing. It won't impede progress, it will free up resources, the animals and the environment will be appreciative. Thus, there are benefits.

 

If you look at your friends essay in an objective light, you might realise how light on substance it actually is. 

 

To extend this, you constantly defend the rich, as if they are a "necessity" without providing your own burden of proof. I have stated multiple times that it is the workers that are the reason why you all of the commodities in your life. And you still think, that the rich somehow play a "significant" role simply because they privatize the means of production. Is it not possible for the workers to own the means of production themselves? Or maybe this is a foreign concept to you, because you never have suggested this to be a possibility. If your going to defend capitalism, at the very least explain why privatization is "better" than worker's control. 

 

I haven’t disagreed with you that it is indeed the workers that provide society it’s drive, I have merely pointed to history and asked why it’s the working class in capitalist societies, and even the working class in medieval times succeed so much more than the working class in socialist societies. You dodged the question, like you dodge many questions and instead hide behind articles and essays you probably don’t understand are incredibly lightweight. Let me put it this way, capitalist societies and socialist societies both have workforces, how come Capitalist societies produce so much more than socialist ones? Drive progress so much more than socialist ones. It shouldn’t be hard to answer.

 

The reason why I provided these links, was because that I felt that nothing I was saying was not getting thru to you. Perhaps I could provide the words of another author, someone who is better at explaining these kinds of topics, perhaps then something would click inside of you, regardless if you agree with the argument or not. It is not my job to "convince" you that Anarchy is the most justifiable way for all of humanity to follow, this you must decide on your own, it is not my right to define what you believe in. I am here to provide with you a new perspective, a new way of viewing the world. You may then do as you wish with it, either reflect or forget about what I have stated. 

 

Nothing you say is getting through because you have an incredibly dodgy knowledge of how the world actually works. I present the slightest opposition to your claims, you start repeating yourself and falling apart, and you resort to your articles. Your articles are boring, they're stuff I've seen before, and they're light on facts pertinent to the discussion. Also VERY light on evidence, even though you call for proof yourself.

 

 

I have stated that their is no justification for indirect/direct genocide IF their is any way we can prevent it. My opinion is that it is more important to save the lives of as many people as possible, even if it costs us marketing/progressive benefits. In other words, the lives of everyone comes first before the idea of "progress" (this is me being generous and saying that capitalism ALWAYS chooses progress over conservatism, which is not true). Of course, you might have a different perspective on this, and that is fine, but understand that simply because YOU think that your argument is sound and rational doesn't mean that it will become as easy to understand for someone like me. You must provide sources, evidence, examples, ect.... Or I will not consider your arguments. You can't assume that your arguments are always "common knowledge", perhaps to you they are but to me they are not. 

 

 

That's a really good idea, providing facts. I'd like to see some of your facts, rather than throwing out articles full of wishy washy bullshit from your favourite historian or political organisation. Where are the facts that we aren't approaching overpopulation, that anarchy does work, that workers can drive things forward without the need for the rich or powerful, that the market does stagnate innovation, you really have shown nothing to back up your arguments. I'm echoing views from prominent scientists and economists, who deal with facts and logic. Who do you have in your corner? A historian? A theorist? How very convincing.

 

I disagree with your view on genocide. No justification YOU'D ACCEPT is not the same as no justification.

[Orcka]

Good luck with your work, take it easy, and most importantly… beware of dragons

 

 

Not ironic, just coincidental. Take enough 'stab in the darks' as the Church does (or did,) and every so often you score a hit. 

 

There's no question that there's an upper limit of people the Earth can sustainably hold, it's merely a question of what that number is. The idea that overpopulation is an 'outdated' argument is not correct, as we are always heading toward that number (assuming we haven't passed it.) So it actually becomes more relevant as time passes. And considering our population increased by a billion people in the last 14 years, the overpopulation argument is QUICKLY gaining relevancy.

 

The exact number of humans that can populate the planet in a sustainable way is one which fluctuates however. Scientists have said 4 billion, and they've also said 16 billion, so we're in the zone.

 

After many hours of studying and referring to the subject. I have finished a completed analysis of my perspective of the “overpopulation myth” and why it is not a justification towards poverty and famine (and the idea of depopulation/restriction of fertility). I will also refer to how poverty CAUSES the social issues that we call “overpopulation”, and not the other way around. I also worked with my friendly neighborhood green anarchists (historical definition on what “green anarchism” is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_anarchism) who have provided citations and connotations from biologists and population analysts. As an Anarchist I do not believe in the idea of “privatized literature”, but I do think it is important to set credit where credit is due, so again, I thank them for providing me detailed information and allowing me to use it for my own work. Please note that I did the majority of my editing on a google doc file, so I apologize if certain aspects didn’t copy correctly onto the thread post.

 

So without further ado, let’s get started:

 

Malthus reasoned that human population tends to grow at a geometric rate, while our ability to produce subsistence increases at a merely arithmetical rate, and so we find ourselves in an ever deepening spiral of suffering caused by overpopulation. In Malthus's view this process could only be slowed by the "preventive check" of decreased fertility (presumably attained through zealous spiritual devotion) or, the "positive check" of increased mortality.

 

The Malthusian theory was once thought to be, pretty much, relegated to the status of a curious footnote in the history of economic thought. Henry George's chapters on poverty and subsistence in “Progress and Poverty” stand as the definitive marshalling of the abundant logical ammunition against it. Toward the end of the 20th century AD, however, an influential crew of neo-Malthusians brought the theory back. Also, modern Malthusians such as Paul Ehrlich, Lester Brown and the happy fun guys that called themselves the Club of Rome have added a wrinkle, claiming that subsistence can only keep ahead of population growth at the cost of an unsustainable level of environmental harm.

 

Seven plus billion people is a lot of people, no doubt about it. Is it too many? The neo-Malthusian view seems reasonable, especially when fortified by such statistics as these (published by the Population Institute):

>An estimated 680 million chronically hungry people.

>As population and hunger increase in the developing world, water availability for irrigation is declining.

>The FAO estimates that by 2020, 135 million people may lose their land as a result of soil degradation.

>Of the 20 countries that rank highest on the 2011 Failing States Index (published by Foreign Policy magazine), all but one have a total fertility rate of 3.5 or higher.

>Between 1999 and 2011, the world’s population increased by 1 billion.

 

Indeed, these statistics show that there is plenty of poverty. But do they indicate overpopulation? We must not let ourselves be overzealous by numbers. A hundred million people is an increase of roughly half a percentage point. The Earth has the capacity to absorb such numbers. Today, vast capacities of the earth's resources are unused. Still more arable land is being destroyed by unsustainable farming or settlement practices (this goes back to what I stated about the “raping” of colonial lands by the European powers). And even more of the earth's "carrying capacity" is being used to make weapons, or toys, or crops for export, all manner of things that, despite the wretched poverty of so many of the world's people face, no one needs for survival.

 

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates the earth has the capacity to grow food for about 33 billion people (this falsifies your original statement of 4-16 billion). Critics will protest that such tremendous yields would require the dubious efficiencies of monoculture, petrochemical fertilizers and genetic engineering and that is probably true. Yet it is also true that, in all likelihood, we'll never need to grow anywhere near that much. Current UN estimates project a plateau population of around 9 billion people about midway through this century (and it's worth noting that every time this top figure has been estimated, it has been lower based on new information). Modern "industrial" farming techniques make it easier to run large-scale, remotely-managed corporate farms, but they are not needed to create high yields of nutritious food.

 

The total arable land in the world today, according to the CIA World Factbook, is 3.84 billion acres. The definition used is land that is under cultivation, or temporarily fallow (for less than five years) but it excludes abandoned land resulting from shifting cultivation. Enough arable land exists in India to give each person in the country approximately half an acre. In famine-ravaged Ethiopia, each person could have three-quarters of an acre of arable land. Africa, the poorest continent, has 20.2% of the world's land area, and only 13% of its population. North America has a whopping 2.1 acres of arable land per person.

 

While it is true that many regions have experienced frightening rates of deforestation and topsoil loss, these problems result from land hoarding, not overpopulation. Around the world, deforestation and desertification result from peasants pushing into sub-marginal land while high-quality farmland is either held out of use entirely, or used to grow export crops. In Brazil, for example, the situation became so acute that squatters have been massacred for occupying remote, unused areas of privately-held ranches. Another example can be seen from the Guatemalan fruit company; the peasants are not allowed to cultivate any land belonging to the privatized institution, and the majority of the fruit cultivation is exported to other countries (the US buys 40% of its fruit from Guatemala). A large, organized movement has grown around the peasants' demand simply to be allowed to use land that others don't feel like using, just now.

 

Two factors consistently correlate with high birth rates: poverty, and poor education. It has long been known that when living standards rise in a community, birth rates tend to decline; this widely-documented phenomenon is called the "demographic shift" (Henry George referred to it in 1879). Recently, however, another kind of demographic shift has been observed. Where women have had access to education and media, birth rates have showed significant declines even when income levels had not increased. It is instructive to note, in the table below, the correlations between lower life-expectancy and literacy figures for women, and the standard measures of poverty.

 

The most distasteful part of the recent spate of neo-Malthusian diarrhea has been the notion that irresponsible poor people should be forcibly stopped from procreating, lest their hungry numbers start to wrest control of the resources held by more "civilized" people. In an economy where more energy and resources are spent in taking pictures of children than are used to feed children in the rest of the world, such advice is preposterous. It is true that the developing world cannot raise its standard of living to "Western" standards, using the same wasteful methods, without causing horrible damage to the natural environment. However, "Western standards" are by no means the only game in town. The long-term trend has been for more human satisfaction to be provided with less pollution. Environmentally sustainable technology for industry, food and energy production is available today. The reasons why it is not used extensively have more to do with politics and economics than with technical feasibility. (It could be that the rise of truly global environmental dangers, in the form of climate change, will accelerate these trends.)

 

It remains an unfortunate fact that the world's poorest, most corrupt, most disorganized and environmentally endangered nations are the ones with the highest birth rates (of course, they have fairly high death rates as well; Africa's population actually decreased in the 1990s). The neo-Malthusians identify genuinely dire problems. But it is time we got it straight: poverty is not caused by overpopulation. The syndrome of social problems commonly called "overpopulation" is actually caused by poverty. Therefore, the problem cannot be solved by forcing people to restrict their fertility or by population purging with famine. Our world still has sufficient resources existing to feed every new child but those resources are held idle, or devoted to frivolous uses, or controlled by privatization institutions to monopolize the global market. 

 

 

Works Cited:

 

Brown, Lester, et. al., Beyond Malthus: Sixteen Dimensions of the Population Problem, 

 

Washington, DC, Worldwatch Institute, 1998

 

Elliot, Herschel and Lamm, Richard, "A Moral Code for a Finite World", Chronicle of Higher 

Education, 2002

 

George, Henry, Progress and Poverty, New York, Robert Schalkenbach Foundation

 

Lappé, Frances Moore and Schurman, Rachel, "The Population Puzzle", In Context, Spring, 1989

 

Lutz, Wolfgang, et. al., "The end of world population growth", Nature, August 2, 2001

 

Sen, Amartya, Development as Freedom, New York, Anchor Books, 1999

 

Shah, Anup, www.globalissues.org, Website containing extensive discussion of population and 

 

world hunger, including chapters from Lappé, et. al, World Hunger, 12 Myths, 2nd Edition

 

www.npg.org, Website of the organization Negative Population Growth, Inc.

 

[Darklord Rooke]

Well, that was a thoroughly unimpressive rant - you combine a significant amount of useless information, wrong information, information without context, with outdated figures to try and paint a certain picture. Let’s go through your analysis shall we? In the conclusion I'll ask you to actually address what we're discussing next time, instead of posting a fairly unrelated essay.

 

Paragraph 1 – paragraph 5 = a lot of waffling being done, nothing of substance here. I'll deal with paragraph 6 last.

 

Paragraph 7 - We have figures… unfortunately outdated and wrong ones. “The United Nations Food and Agriculture association estimated in the 1980s that under optimal conditions the world could support 33 billion people. A more recent estimate, considered more reasonable, is that sufficient food could be produced to support 10 to 15 billion people – if political and socioeconomic conditions are favourable.” Which is in line with what the majority of scientists think. Yes, you're using an analysis 30 years old, estimates have been refined since then.

 

SOURCE: Encyclopaedia of Global Change: Environmental Change and Human Society 2001, Goudie, Cuff et al.

 

Next is this assertion that the UN predicts the population to plateau after 2050. I can tell you this is wrong because I have the “World Population to 2300” UN report in front of me, where they predict a range of possible scenarios up to 2300 and depending on the assumptions made they have produced some figures. In other words, they have a high and low figure, and a medium scenario. You’ve picked the medium scenario, where based on certain assumptions the population is expected to plateau. However, the high figure is a whopping 36.4 billion, just in case you were wondering. But it certainly IS possible that the population will plateau after 2050, sure. It's also possible that it will explode.

 

SOURCE: WORLD POPULATION TO 2300, UN REPORT yada yada yada

 

Paragraph 8 – No context is presented for this information, allow me to present some. “If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres)  would support about 10 billion people.” - Edward Wilson, Harvard University sociobiologist. He went on to explain that 3.5 billion acres would produce about 2 billion tons of grain per annum, enough to feed 10 billion people but only 2.5 billion Americans (because so much vegetation is dedicated to livestock and poultry.) Once again, this is a common scientific belief.

 

SOURCE: Edward O Wilson – Harvard University sociobiologist.

 

Paragraph 9 – more waffling being done. And etc etc Deforestation results from both, and I’ll challenge you to produce any document to say population growth isn’t a factor. Remember, I didn't say overpopulation was the sole cause, just A cause.

 

Paragraph 6 – “The Earth has the capacity to absorb such numbers” is a statement which not only has nothing to back it up, but goes against the consensus of the scientific community. Then you descend into the notion that if we just concentrated on what we need to survive, we can support more people, which does nothing to address the original argument that ‘quality of life will increases with fewer people’. However, of course if we just focused on survival we can support quite a few more people than currently, we could even build massive towers, hook 99% of people up to medical dispensary machines, lie them down in a pod, and then send them all into a coma. Sure, these people won’t be conscious to experience life, but they will survive, and the Earth will be able to support more people. It’s a nonsensical argument, the ability to feed people is merely one concern of many (like the ability to actually defend yourself.)

 

Conclusion: You seem like you want to argue a different argument, because most of the stuff you’re talking about is not relevant, and when you do address the issue, you bring out either outdated facts, wrong facts, or out of context facts. The population won't necessarily plateau, 33 billion people is an out of date figure (anarchists sure love to embrace the past,) 3.84 billion acres is estimated to support 10 billion people (in line with what most scientists believe,) and unlike what most anarchists wish to believe we have more concerns than just 'food' to actually deal with.

 

You’re trying to paint me as a Malthus enthusiast, so you can launch already prepped arguments at me, which are off-topic btw. You don’t address the original issue, which was that everybody would be more comfortable if there were fewer people. Then you try and argue a stance that poverty is not caused by overpopulation, what point of mine was this supposed to address?

 

I find your knowledge of the world suspect, and your continual habit of going off-topic an indicator that you’re trying to shift the discussion to something you’re more comfortable talking about.

 

Let me make this easier for you – I’m not interested about the ‘evils’ of the Western World, or the causes of ‘poverty.’ In fact, I’m not interested in curing ‘poverty,’ so save your lecture on the issue. What I said was that reducing the population would free up resources, and that misery and pain weren’t always objectively bad. You wanted to engage me on this by talking about stuff completely unrelated, but you have yet to address the actual arguments I was making. Reducing the population can be considered a 'good thing' (whether it's possible to support more or not,) and causing harm to others isn't always a 'bad' thing. I’m incredibly uninterested in the standard points you're trotting out which address completely unrelated issues, but feel free to shout into the winds if you feel like it.

 

Furthermore, the fact that you had to consult your green, anarchy friends, makes me even more certain you know very little of what you're actually talking about, and are just repeating a whole bunch of stuff you read not so long ago. It feels like you're reciting bits and pieces from reports without thinking them through, because most of your stuff is off-topic. 

[Orcka]

Well, that was a thoroughly unimpressive rant - you combine a significant amount of useless information, wrong information, information without context, with outdated figures to try and paint a certain picture. Let’s go through your analysis shall we? In the conclusion I'll ask you to actually address what we're discussing next time, instead of posting a fairly unrelated essay.

 

Paragraph 1 – paragraph 5 = a lot of waffling being done, nothing of substance here. I'll deal with paragraph 6 last.

 

Paragraph 7 - We have figures… unfortunately outdated and wrong ones. “The United Nations Food and Agriculture association estimated in the 1980s that under optimal conditions the world could support 33 billion people. A more recent estimate, considered more reasonable, is that sufficient food could be produced to support 10 to 15 billion people – if political and socioeconomic conditions are favourable.” Which is in line with what the majority of scientists think. Yes, you're using an analysis 30 years old, estimates have been refined since then.

 

SOURCE: Encyclopaedia of Global Change: Environmental Change and Human Society 2001, Goudie, Cuff et al.

 

Next is this assertion that the UN predicts the population to plateau after 2050. I can tell you this is wrong because I have the “World Population to 2300” UN report in front of me, where they predict a range of possible scenarios up to 2300 and depending on the assumptions made they have produced some figures. In other words, they have a high and low figure, and a medium scenario. You’ve picked the medium scenario, where based on certain assumptions the population is expected to plateau. However, the high figure is a whopping 36.4 billion, just in case you were wondering. But it certainly IS possible that the population will plateau after 2050, sure. It's also possible that it will explode.

 

SOURCE: WORLD POPULATION TO 2300, UN REPORT yada yada yada

 

Paragraph 8 – No context is presented for this information, allow me to present some. “If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres)  would support about 10 billion people.” - Edward Wilson, Harvard University sociobiologist. He went on to explain that 3.5 billion acres would produce about 2 billion tons of grain per annum, enough to feed 10 billion people but only 2.5 billion Americans (because so much vegetation is dedicated to livestock and poultry.) Once again, this is a common scientific belief.

 

SOURCE: Edward O Wilson – Harvard University sociobiologist.

 

Paragraph 9 – more waffling being done. And etc etc Deforestation results from both, and I’ll challenge you to produce any document to say population growth isn’t a factor. Remember, I didn't say overpopulation was the sole cause, just A cause.

 

Paragraph 6 – “The Earth has the capacity to absorb such numbers” is a statement which not only has nothing to back it up, but goes against the consensus of the scientific community. Then you descend into the notion that if we just concentrated on what we need to survive, we can support more people, which does nothing to address the original argument that ‘quality of life will increases with fewer people’. However, of course if we just focused on survival we can support quite a few more people than currently, we could even build massive towers, hook 99% of people up to medical dispensary machines, lie them down in a pod, and then send them all into a coma. Sure, these people won’t be conscious to experience life, but they will survive, and the Earth will be able to support more people. It’s a nonsensical argument, the ability to feed people is merely one concern of many (like the ability to actually defend yourself.)

 

Conclusion: You seem like you want to argue a different argument, because most of the stuff you’re talking about is not relevant, and when you do address the issue, you bring out either outdated facts, wrong facts, or out of context facts. The population won't necessarily plateau, 33 billion people is an out of date figure (anarchists sure love to embrace the past,) 3.84 billion acres is estimated to support 10 billion people (in line with what most scientists believe,) and unlike what most anarchists wish to believe we have more concerns than just 'food' to actually deal with.

 

You’re trying to paint me as a Malthus enthusiast, so you can launch already prepped arguments at me, which are off-topic btw. You don’t address the original issue, which was that everybody would be more comfortable if there were fewer people. Then you try and argue a stance that poverty is not caused by overpopulation, what point of mine was this supposed to address?

 

I find your knowledge of the world suspect, and your continual habit of going off-topic an indicator that you’re trying to shift the discussion to something you’re more comfortable talking about.

 

Let me make this easier for you – I’m not interested about the ‘evils’ of the Western World, or the causes of ‘poverty.’ In fact, I’m not interested in curing ‘poverty,’ so save your lecture on the issue. What I said was that reducing the population would free up resources, and that misery and pain weren’t always objectively bad. You wanted to engage me on this by talking about stuff completely unrelated, but you have yet to address the actual arguments I was making. Reducing the population can be considered a 'good thing' (whether it's possible to support more or not,) and causing harm to others isn't always a 'bad' thing. I’m incredibly uninterested in the standard points you're trotting out which address completely unrelated issues, but feel free to shout into the winds if you feel like it.

 

Furthermore, the fact that you had to consult your green, anarchy friends, makes me even more certain you know very little of what you're actually talking about, and are just repeating a whole bunch of stuff you read not so long ago. It feels like you're reciting bits and pieces from reports without thinking them through, because most of your stuff is off-topic. 

[Darklord Rooke]

It's funny how you love to generalize scientists so much. It seems that you love to play the "my source info is better than yours" game. 

 

Considering your sources are largely either historians, or stuff from 30 years ago, my sources ARE better than yours.

 

I also loved how you "skipped" Paragraphs 1-5 

 

Paragraphs 1 to 5 aren’t relevant. An introduction, Malthus crap, history of Malthus crap, and unrelated statistics.

 

Let's look at the Food & Agriculture UN statement that you seem to falsify: 

 

"The world produces enough food to feed everyone. For the world as a whole, per capita food availability has risen from about 2220 kcal/person/day in the early 1960s to 2790 kcal/person/day in 2006-08, while developing countries even recorded a leap from 1850 kcal/person/day to over 2640 kcal/person/day. This growth in food availability in conjunction with improved access to food helped reduce the percentage of chronically undernourished people in developing countries from 34 percent in the mid 1970s to just 15 percent three decades later. The principal problem is that many people in the world still do not have sufficient income to purchase (or land to grow) enough food." 

 

-Biodiversity professor Cesar G Victora (2014), a Brazilian biologist who spent 20 years of his life studying the biomass/population of Brazil, which he then provided his information to the FAO. He is also one of the sources I got the information on Brazil's peasant crisis.  

 

So yes, I do consider his source to be more credible than someone like E. O. Wilson (WOW HE GRADUATED FROM HARVARD, SUCH CREDIBILITY!).

 

This is a nice example of the misinformation you try and spread. Your source doesn’t contradict my source, and so I haven’t falsified anything. I never stated that it wasn’t possible to grow enough food to feed the PRESENT DAY population, and the statement I quoted didn't say this either.

 

E. O. Wilson said we can grow enough food to feed 10 billion people, and considering our current population has yet to reach 10 billion people it is not contradicted by the statement you posted by Cesar G Victoria. 

 

So here you've quoted a biologist who stated the same thing Wilson implied, and then tried to use this as the basis to discredit Wilson? Are you for real, or are you just winding me up? More likely you're just ticked that Wilson puts forward the idea that we're fast approaching the limit in the numbers this planet can actually support, whereas Victoria did not mention this.

 

Biased statistics is something you love to hold onto, anyone who searches the internet enough can find someone with some form of "credibility" and paste a quote about them that lines parallel to your argument. 

 

I haven't produced biased statistics, feel free to point them out if you do find one though. 

 

I'm just going to let your prolonging madness swallow you whole. Good day to you sir, it was at least an engaging argument while it lasted, but ironically, it had little to nothing to do with Anarchism. Oh well I tend to derail my threads sometimes, hopefully I'll learn from my mistakes. 

 

Yes, my being is being swallowed by madness as we speak. The woe I'm currently feeling is indescribable, and bitter regret is filling my heart.