Should there be limits to an individual's property in society?

[MikeNovack]

I guess I will have to take your word for it that you are writing this stuff sober. It would be better if you weren't. I won't touch this Stalinist monstrosity with a shitty stick.

The fundamental equation

Total consumption (for the society, the region, etc.) = consumption per person times persons

That means that means that there are TWO ways to reduce total consumption
We can have a reduction of consumption per person but not to below bare survival. Or we can have a reduction on the number of persons. Note that as long as the number of persons is increasing exponentially, no reduction of consumption per person will work for long. So reduction of births/woman to 2.0 or below is a sine qua non for sustainability.

WHAT do you mean by "Stalinist"? Do you imagine that Canadian women are being forced to have fewer babies? There reality is that they are CHOOSING this freely (though of course, not because they are trying to save the environment). That the "P word" is taboo to discuss has caused civil war within environmental organizations << Penny and I were involved when the fight took lace in Sierra -- personally knew some of the people contesting for seats on the BoD >>

You are thinking "Stalinist" because of China and its "one child policy" perhaps. The current 1.24 in Canada is almost as severe a rate of reduction as that and purely voluntary (well ....... choice enforced by the economic cost of raising a child -- except I doubt the birth rate among the rich Canadians is much higher). BTW --- that 1.24 is FAR too severe a reduction rate not to disrupt the society 1.5 is perhaps as fast as could be continued without disruption.

[Impenitent]

too many people consuming too many resources?

do what humans have done since day one:

go to war

-Imp

[FlashDangerpants]

I guess I will have to take your word for it that you are writing this stuff sober. It would be better if you weren't. I won't touch this Stalinist monstrosity with a shitty stick.

The fundamental equation

Total consumption (for the society, the region, etc.) = consumption per person times persons

That means that means that there are TWO ways to reduce total consumption
We can have a reduction of consumption per person but not to below bare survival. Or we can have a reduction on the number of persons. Note that as long as the number of persons is increasing exponentially, no reduction of consumption per person will work for long. So reduction of births/woman to 2.0 or below is a sine qua non for sustainability.

That's ridiculous nonsense. A change of tax policy to disincentivise private jets would bring down carbon emissions if it was high enough to reduce the number of private jets. Killing half the population wouldn't remove any of those jets, you would still need to use a tax to reduce their use, and now you've murdered 20 million people and increased taxes too, you monster.

WHAT do you mean by "Stalinist"? Do you imagine that Canadian women are being forced to have fewer babies? There reality is that they are CHOOSING this freely (though of course, not because they are trying to save the environment). That the "P word" is taboo to discuss has caused civil war within environmental organizations << Penny and I were involved when the fight took lace in Sierra -- personally knew some of the people contesting for seats on the BoD >>

You are thinking "Stalinist" because of China and its "one child policy" perhaps. The current 1.24 in Canada is almost as severe a rate of reduction as that and purely voluntary (well ....... choice enforced by the economic cost of raising a child -- except I doubt the birth rate among the rich Canadians is much higher). BTW --- that 1.24 is FAR too severe a reduction rate not to disrupt the society 1.5 is perhaps as fast as could be continued without disruption.

Are you positive that you are not drunk when you write this incoherent mess?

Whatever complaint you are struggling to put into words there probably shouldn't be reworked into meaningful sentences, you should try an alternative approach: reconsider your whole argument, it is bad. The notion of a collective making a group decision to consume more carbon per head and reduce headcount is simply totalitarian. You are assigning quotas for things that should be left up to individuals to decide. If that is lost on you, you are lost in general.

[MikeNovack]

too many people consuming too many resources?

do what humans have done since day one:

go to war

-Imp

Well war was one of the things on Malthus's list of things that could control population. I am much more interested in what he meant by "vice" (keep in mind, he was a late 18t early 19th Century minister). He never spells that out. My guess is he meant sex without procreation (birth control, abortion, infanticide, etc.)

But yes, I believe part of the crash will be war. Part will also be defending areas mowing down poorly armed migrants.

PS" I am unwilling to discuss Malthus based on what other people have said he said. But probably others here have not actually read his An Essay on the Principle of Population so we can't.

[Immanuel Can]

too many people consuming too many resources?

do what humans have done since day one:

go to war

-Imp

Well war was one of the things on Malthus's list of things that could control population.

Malthus was wrong, just as Ehrlich was wrong. The problems with both turned out to be the same: first, the assumption that what had happened up to that point must inevitably continue its trajectory, and secondly, the false assumption that both held that they understood all the forces in play on population. (Just as an example, both failed to realize that education and rising prosperity curtail reproduction without them needing to figure out how to kill anybody.)

But the part that mystifies me about your argument would be this: given that populations are actually already declining in the West, so they cannot be the source of the population issue, just how do you propose to produce the deaths of large numbers of people in the Developing World? And what moral right would one have to do such a thing, whatever it is?

P.S. -- Is it even necessary to remind anybody of the unsavoury history of eugenic aspirations? When a government "solution" to alleged "unwanted populations" is found, it has a marked tendancy to be very "final."

[MikeNovack]

Malthus was wrong, just as Ehrlich was wrong. The problems with both turned out to be the same: first, the assumption that what had happened up to that point must inevitably continue its trajectory, and secondly, the false assumption that both held that they understood all the forces in play on population. (Just as an example, both failed to realize that education and rising prosperity curtail reproduction without them needing to figure out how to kill anybody.)

I will repeat, have you read Malthus? What do YOU conclude he might have meant meant by "or vice"?

Yes the reproduction rate has dropped. But by means of ........... You don't think a late 18th/early 18th Century clergyman would consider contraception and abortion to be vices? We have 21st Century clergymen and lay persons who still believe that. Malthus argued that people were not going to give up sex. MY GUESS (as to the "or vice") is sex without procreation. He does not otherwise consider that possibility. You are too quick to claim "Malthus wrong".

And I think we have (not just you) a SERIOUS misunderstanding when interpreting what I mean when I say "society decides". I am NOT talking about fiat or other imposed rule from above. Do you imagine that how long hem lines should be or what colors of clothing appropriate in what social settings are societal rules decreed by laws? Or which hands hold the knife and fork or which foods eaten with utensils and for which you can use your hands? Maybe in Iran they have "moral police" but most places society's rules are enforced by less formal means. And far less clear where the specifics of fashion come from.

I already pointed out that the REASON most Canadian women are having so few children is not environmental concern (for a very few, it MIGHT be). And it obviously is not fiat decreed from above. I still describe that as a decision of Canadian society. But tat just the net effect of decsions made by individual Canadian women.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes the reproduction rate has dropped. But by means of ........... You don't think a late 18th/early 18th Century clergyman would consider contraception and abortion to be vices? We have 21st Century clergymen and lay persons who still believe that.

Well, abortion is murder...so there's that. But I don't think 18th Century clergy-men had any real familiarity with either.

You are too quick to claim "Malthus wrong".

Not at all. Like all prognosticators, he didn't know what the future held. He also didn't understand how prosperity would change the equation. He certainly couldn't have imagined how things like the breakdown of families, late adulthood, various non-reproductive forms of sexual deviance and internet culture would accelerate the human propensity to avoid reproductive success.

And I think we have (not just you) a SERIOUS misunderstanding when interpreting what I mean when I say "society decides".

It doesn't. People decide when and why they reproduce. I've never even met one that said, "Hold on, chum...I must consult society on this."

tat just the net effect of decsions made by individual Canadian women.

My point, precisely. It's not "society" at all. It's individuals.

One thing you must admit about Malthusianism: it refers to the deliberate attempt to dictate the number of people who are allowed to exist. Such a deliberate dictation never comes from individuals, who can only control their own reproduction, but rather is supposed to be government-mandated management of mass numbers.

And now we know what neither Malthus nor Ehrlich knew: that the problem is located in the Developing World. What do you propose to do about that?

[MikeNovack]

A) My point, precisely. It's not "society" at all. It's individuals.

B) One thing you must admit about Malthusianism: it refers to the deliberate attempt to dictate the number of people who are allowed to exist.

A) Yes, individual people decide. They can decide contrary to what the society has "decreed". If you want, you can pick that steak up off the plate and bite off pieces with your teeth or eat your mash potatoes by scooping it up in your hands. IN PRIVATE. Try it in a restaurant, in society, and see whsat happens.

B) I said discuss MALTHUS (his actual words). Not "Malthiusianism" (what OTHERS have chosen to make of what he said). For example, he never said anything like "population limited to X because thew food supply is limited to Y" (so arguing he was wrong because the food supply has increased since his day is nonsense --- X still depends on Y, only now that Y is larger, so is X).**

BUT NOTE --we have reduced our birth rate without reducing sex. I am suggesting he DID take that into account in his list of what (besides food supply could control population, like war, other UNACCEPTABLE means of control). Tell me IC, what is your position on abortion? Acceptable or an unacceptable "vice".

** This is the reverse of what happened to what Gandhi supposedly said. He did NOT say "There is always enough for need but never enough for greed". With considerable effort I worked back to his original statement, which was "ecological" --- an entire paragraph more or less "under current conditions of population and food supply there is enough for need but not for greed" (he was referencing SPECIFIC numbers, and at the time he said it the human population WAS low enough for a sustainable solution to be possible)

[Immanuel Can]

A) Yes, individual people decide.

Without all the distraction stuff, could you please just answer my question: what are you thinking should be done about the Developing World population?

I know why you can't answer. It's because speaking about people who are in other cultures, who have skins that are brown, black, red or yellow smacks of two things Lefties pretend never to be guilty of: racism and colonialism. Answering at all would involve predominantly white, Western, developed nations telling poor, non-white, less-developed nations what to do...and while many Leftists are both racist and colonialist in their attitudes (see things like the "belts and roads" initiative by the Communist Chinese, for example) it's not cool to be recognized as holding those attitudes, particularly by other Leftists.

But then you're left with this reality: that the Greenies are merely yammering at the white Westerners, who are already in a death-spiral of reproductive deficit, not in need of population control. It's not really dealing with any "population crisis" at all...in fact, it's making the population deficit in the West much worse.

In other words, today's Greenies, Malthusians, Ehrlichans, Thunbergians or whatever you want to call them are also charlatans...fakes...virtue signalers...who are in denial of the same problem they are posing as addressing, and purely for their own selfish purposes of being seen to be politically correct in front of their peers.

[MikeNovack]

Without all the distraction stuff, could you please just answer my question: what are you thinking should be done about the Developing World population?

I know why you can't answer. It's because speaking about people who are in other cultures, who have skins that are brown, black, red or yellow smacks of two things Lefties pretend never to be guilty of: racism and colonialism.

I can answer perfectly well. There is no "should". Just about EVERYWHERE the population WILL reduce or will be reduced to what can be sustained by the remaining ecological base. Those who do not choose will have to take what comes, and that might also be true for some that choose.

For some reason you seem t think I believe population has to go down is POC "over there" and not here. IC, I am in the US, not Canada. When I say the ecological base of Canada could support the human population of Canada on a sustainable basis I am NOT making that claim about the US

Come the crash wherever in extremis the ecological "seed corn" is also eaten the population my badly "undershoot". And of course if in extremis the missiles with atomic warheads fly, all but a few of us.

IC -- do you seriously expect me to believe that for the UK, its current population could be sustained at much of a "standard of consumption" supported just by the ecological base of the UK?

[Immanuel Can]

Just about EVERYWHERE the population WILL reduce or will be reduced to what can be sustained by the remaining ecological base.

"Reduced" by "the remaining ecological base." Nice wording. You mean "starvation." Let's speak plainly.

But starvation is caused by bad land use, which is caused by bad government. And the worst governments, in this regard, are Socialist. Witness the disaster in Zimbabwe, or the Holomodor in Ukraine, or the starvations during the Maoist "Great Leap Forward." Nobody starves people like Socialists do.

And you still didn't really answer, because you're trying to pretend again that population is a Western issue. It's not. Western populations are below replacement. You still have to have a solution for the Developing World...and so far, you solution is "starve them to death."

Lovely.

[phyllo]

I can answer perfectly well. There is no "should". Just about EVERYWHERE the population WILL reduce or will be reduced to what can be sustained by the remaining ecological base. Those who do not choose will have to take what comes, and that might also be true for some that choose.

For some reason you seem t think I believe population has to go down is POC "over there" and not here. IC, I am in the US, not Canada. When I say the ecological base of Canada could support the human population of Canada on a sustainable basis I am NOT making that claim about the US

Sustainability is a global issue and every country has to be involved. What happens here has an impact over there. What happens over there has an impact here. The entire planet is at stake. And we only have one.

Canada doesn't get a 'free ride'. It has to make a contribution, it has to do better.

[MikeNovack]

Sustainability is a global issue and every country has to be involved. What happens here has an impact over there. What happens over there has an impact here. The entire planet is at stake. And we only have one.

Canada doesn't get a 'free ride'. It has to make a contribution, it has to do better.

"Canada doesn't get a 'free ride'. It has to make a contribution, it has to do better" ----- Uh . a birthrate of 1.25 is equivalent to about a 3% reduction in gross consumption/year (assuming consumption per person remains constant). You think they should be doing better than 3%/year?Understand? A reduction in consumption per person of 3%/year (but birthrate 2.1) is about the same as constant consumption per person (but birthrate of 1.25) I do not expect all places/societies to be making the same choices.*

Indeed, it is a global problem. The entire planet is at stake. But I know this about my species, we do not "share" in this situation. When the crash comes, push come to shove, those in a better position will NOT voluntarily share with those in dire straights. They MIGHT do that IF there would be enough to go around, but that is not the case here when there will not be.

There is not enough remaining time to avert a crash. It will become very nasty.

PLEASE -- You greatly misunderstand me if you think my belief that it's hopeless means the ethical thing is to do nothing, not to try. We should do what we can regardless. But as individuals, we can only change how WE choose to live.

IC, it is not "land use" in the sense you think and we here in the US are not doing such a great job. This is less capitalism vs socialism as much as depletion of fossil resources. I'm not talking about oil but water. We here are pumping aquifers dry, and when those gone, many of the areas now prime crop production areas will return to desert. Before say 1920, it was New York State not California that led the nation in crop production (because plenty of rainfall).

* IC -- these individual Canadian women ARE making the choice between number of babies and standard of consumption (how much their individual family will have per person in it. They are having fewer babies because they don't think they can afford to raise more without drastic reduction in family standard of living.

[phyllo]

"Canada doesn't get a 'free ride'. It has to make a contribution, it has to do better" ----- Uh . a birthrate of 1.25 is equivalent to about a 3% reduction in gross consumption/year (assuming consumption per person remains constant). You think they should be doing better than 3%/year?Understand? A reduction in consumption per person of 3%/year (but birthrate 2.1) is about the same as constant consumption per person (but birthrate of 1.25) I do not expect all places/societies to be making the same choices.*

I understand that you are very focused on population and birth rates.

I think it is better to focus on efficient use of resources and eliminating waste.

PLEASE -- You greatly misunderstand me if you think my belief that it's hopeless means the ethical thing is to do nothing, not to try. We should do what we can regardless. But as individuals, we can only change how WE choose to live.

As individuals, we have a say in the direction our country and society takes. We can change that direction if we choose.

[FlashDangerpants]

I understand that you are very focused on population and birth rates.

I would wager an unreasonable number of FlashdangerBucks that 15 years ago he was one of those people telling us we were doooooomed because of peak oil.