Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Yea, color me surprised on you thinking that overpopulation isn't an issue.

The world has a carrying capacity of trillions, if managed properly. But most of the planet's resources are wasted. This is not the fault of the population, but of mismanagement.

 

[Der Morgenstern]

The world has a carrying capacity of trillions, if managed properly. But most of the planet's resources are wasted. This is not the fault of the population, but of mismanagement.

Unrealized carrying capacity through mismanagement does not suddenly make overpopulation a non-issue. If we don't have the technology, nor ability, to realize our full carrying capacity (which, by the way, isn't as high as you claim it to be according to several of the leading authorities in the field), overpopulation does become a real issue.

 

[Dak]

Um, we do have the technology and capacity. But we have tyrannical governments mismanaging the hell out of the earth. try again.

Also, the birthrates in the western world are at or below stable population percentages (mostly below). Basically the only countries showing birthrate gains are Muslim countries.

I don't know what "leading authorities" you listen to, but I bet they are being paid by the same people funding the carbon based climate change bullshit charade.

 

[Pessimism]

The world cannot sustain trillions of people, that is a fact. We can't even sustain billions for fuck's sake.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I didn't read any of the links posted, but I have to ask: where is the science that shows that overpopulation is a myth? I've seen the arguments based on the fact that a majority of the earth's land area is uninhabited, but that's an extremely weak argument.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

That may very well be so.

For me personally though, I don't believe that the pure act of eating other animals (methods of killing or harvesting aside) is evil or wrong in any way. Animals kill each other for sustenance in the wild all the time. I've heard some people make the claim that because of our "advanced" consciousness we should accept a higher level of responsibility; ergo, we know and can anticipate the pain caused upon animals, so they should not be harmed.

I don't buy this argument. If we accept that because we are conscious of the pain/death we might cause then we accept some higher responsibility, then you have to assert a normative claim that harming animals is wrong. This supposes some kind of teleological course of history that men were destined to arise to this level and thus have a predetermined responsibility. If someone denies this (that our heightened consciousness was predetermined, that we're part of a teleological process) then you also have to deny that we have any responsibility at all toward animals. You can see pure nature in action when a flower traps a fly, or a lion drags down a gazelle. I don't feel any sense of shame or guilt from eating meat.

I agree with you, our responsibility is not in whether or not we should or shouldn't be eating and breeding animals but to what extent of suffering? Morally, we are to prevent as much suffering as possible and that effort is not being shown in the slightest. What animals do in the wild/nature in contrast to slave like manufacturing and mindless suffering is not comparable. We are conscious of this and smarter than that therefore we are responsible. We know it exist and we can identify it and the responsibility must be in question, at the least.

We as conceptual beings with free will are responsible for perceptual animals and their quality of life. Not just for their sake but for ours.

Compassion is our responsibility. The complete human element. Resolve.

 

[Dak]

I didn't read any of the links posted, but I have to ask: where is the science that shows that overpopulation is a myth? I've seen the arguments based on the fact that a majority of the earth's land area is uninhabited, but that's an extremely weak argument.

Unfortunately I don't think there are any figures to show how much food ends up unconsumed in a dumpster, or rots in UN warehouses. Those would be the first stats to start with.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Hey Dak, ever think that maybe there is just too much to manage, regardless.

You're talking about idealism when it comes to mismanaging. The more people, the more abstractions.

If you had 3 kids compared to 10 you don't think you'd end up mismanaging a few of their lives?

C'mon dude, there are people starving on this earth. Population is a factor and it does dictate mismanagement.

 

[Dak]

The easiest way to solve the problem is to de-centralize. It IS a major problem for one person/group/organization to try and oversee large swaths of land/people/resources, yet global oversight keeps being heralded as a savior.

 

[Badbird]

I used to know of a video that explained this better but can't find it anymore.

Haha, what a joke. Where the facist for the right wing?

 

[Einherjar86]

We are conscious of this and smarter than that therefore we are responsible.

This is problematic for me. I completely agree that, in being human, we feel a certain compassion and remorse for others (be it human or animal); but I'm hesitant to claim that our cognitive superiority endows us with some higher responsibility.

Ideas of responsibility and compassion are abstract notions that are only realized because of the evolution of consciousness. This leads me to doubt that, simply because they exist in our minds, they exist as normative universals in the actual world. That makes it difficult to prove that there's any objective law of responsibility that exists.

EDIT: of course, I'm not claiming that we need to prove that there's any logical reason for compassion before we should be compassionate.

Haha, what a joke. Where the facist for the right wing?

Let's clarify; right wing and left wing culminate in the same thing, they just go about it different ways.

That diagram should be labeled differently. It's not truly following ideas of "left wing" and "right wing," because those are both frequently associated with party politics; and if that's the case, then fascism and socialism would be located at both ends and it could just be a fucking circle.

What it's actually mapping out is the dichotomy between classical liberalism, on the right, and "welfarism" on the left (i.e. small government vs. big government). Small government, taken to the extreme, would be no government, and thus anarchy. Big government, taken to the extreme, would be totalitarianism, which is the ultimate extreme of both the Democratic and Republican parties (although they like to claim differently).

Fascism is not to be construed as having anything to do with classical liberalist/economically conservative views. As R. Scott Bakker says regarding the definition of "conservative:"

(1) "The urge to hold one’s testicles while asleep. (Not to be confused with Fascism, the urge to seize the testicles of others)."

EDIT: and ideally, Marxism should actually be on the right side of that diagram, since government (or whatever centralized organization), once it has overseen the distribution of the means of production among the people, would then disappear (leaving just people with the means of production, or anarchy). Of course, most of us realize the idiocy of this scenario.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Ein, if you wouldn't mind, I think we should continue this conversation in the philosophy thread so that we don't hi-jack this one.

I like your ideas and I noticed you are highly philosophically inclined. I'd like to hear more but this convo can go in so many different directions.

 

[Der Morgenstern]

Um, we do have the technology and capacity. But we have tyrannical governments mismanaging the hell out of the earth. try again.

Also, the birthrates in the western world are at or below stable population percentages (mostly below). Basically the only countries showing birthrate gains are Muslim countries.

I don't know what "leading authorities" you listen to, but I bet they are being paid by the same people funding the carbon based climate change bullshit charade.

Yea, as soon as you put on your tinfoil hat, any chance of an interesting, insightful conversation goes out the fucking window.

Maybe I need to break this shit into even simpler terms for you. Regardless if there is the potential for a carrying capacity, the reality of the situation is that we need to focus on managing a self-imposed carrying capacity of a few billion since we, as basic human beings, lack the ability and the drive to actually work toward maximizing the fundamental proper use of our resources. It won't happen in our lifetime and things are already decidedly slipping downhill in regards to food shortages, changing climates that are increasing both droughts and shortening growing seasons, etc. Where you see in all of this that centralization is the problem and that we need to have more people doing whatever the fuck they want as being the solution to these current issues is actually amusing.

Just because my piece of shit Mazda Protege could be overhauled to the hilt and suddenly run with over 400 HP does not mean I have the resources or the technological ability to make it so.

 

[Dak]

Overpopulationists are the ultimate hypocrites, and I refuse to discuss this with you since you don't actually personally do anything about the "problem".

 

[Einherjar86]

Ein, if you wouldn't mind, I think we should continue this conversation in the philosophy thread so that we don't hi-jack this one.

I like your ideas and I noticed you are highly philosophically inclined. I'd like to hear more but this convo can go in so many different directions.

I wouldn't mind, and I do find this topic interesting. I'm not sure how much more I'll be able to say, and I'm not an authority by any means; but I enjoy talking about this stuff.

 

[Valerie]

I refuse to discuss this with you since you don't actually personally do anything about the "problem".

I would like to point out that if you were serious about this illogical reason to stop discussing something, then you probably shouldn't have ever started talking to begin with, since you've actually contributed to the "problem". Right dad?

ultimate hypocrites

" "

 

[Dak]

I would like to point out that if you were serious about this illogical reason to stop discussing something, then you probably shouldn't have ever started talking to begin with, since you've actually contributed to the "problem". Right dad?

" "

I am contributing to the solution.

 

[Valerie]

SPAWN OF SATAN

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

More like epitome of self righteous.

 

[Dak]

Aren't we all?