Live simply, so others may simply live

[Mithrae]

Of all the problems that threaten humanity, over population is at the root of them all.

Coincidentally, rich people and rich countries tend to have fewer babies. How convenient for us that the 'real problem' is both one which can be blamed mostly on the rest of the world, the impoverished masses, and one whose trajectory can't even be changed much in any ethical fashion! It's almost as if this is a 'problem' amplified and pushed and weaponized by people who enjoy and want to maintain a consumption footprint dozens if not hundreds of times larger than two-thirds of the people on the planet.

Earth can comfortably supply ten billion people's need; it will never satisfy even one billion people's greed.

 

[craig]

Coincidentally, rich people and rich countries tend to have fewer babies. How convenient for us that the 'real problem' is both one which can be blamed mostly on the rest of the world, the impoverished masses, and one whose trajectory can't even be changed much in any ethical fashion! It's almost as if this is a 'problem' amplified and pushed and weaponized by people who enjoy and want to maintain a consumption footprint dozens if not hundreds of times larger than two-thirds of the people on the planet.

Earth can comfortably supply ten billion people's need; it will never satisfy even one billion people's greed.

Will all 10 billion have the infrastructure to bitch about greedy people on the internet?

 

[Mithrae]

Will all 10 billion have the infrastructure to bitch about greedy people on the internet?

They could, yes. Over 70% of the world's population live on less than $10 per day/$3700 per year, yet over 60% have some kind of internet connectivity; that's a remarkable overlap, around a third of the world's population having internet access despite that level of poverty. In a better world of course they would not be in poverty, and they would not be demonized as the cause of all the world's ills by people such as yourself.

 

[craig]

They could, yes. Over 70% of the world's population live on less than $10 per day/$3700 per year, yet over 60% have some kind of internet connectivity; that's a remarkable overlap, around a third of the world's population having internet access despite that level of poverty. In a better world of course they would not be in poverty, and they would not be demonized as the cause of all the world's ills by people such as yourself.

Demonized? I said their were too many people. I did not say who was surplus.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Overconsumption isn’t a thing. There’s plenty of resources to go around. The issue is with capitalist waste and artificial scarcity.

Consumption, isn't that what they used to call Tuberculosis?

 

[Mithrae]

Demonized? I said their were too many people. I did not say who was surplus.

No, nor did you offer any evidence or explanation why 'over population' is even a problem let alone the root of all problems, nor any ballpark for what in your view would be the 'correct population,' nor any ideas on how to get there. It's easy rhetoric to fall prey to; as I noted, most of the world's richest and most influential people have every incentive to amplify the 'overpopulation' myth, and most folk in wealthy countries have good reason to embrace it as a comfortable narrative too:

 

[Simpletruther]

Only in a "how can we all improve ourselves together?" sort of way. The Ten Commandments were written by a murderer; the declaration of inalienable human rights to liberty etc was written by a slaveowner. If you're particularly curious, here's a Facebook post of mine from three years ago:

Some tough conclusions: If I eat a quarter pounder, that's pretty much all the meat I should ethically eat in that week; a double quarter or a small (250g) steak is about all the meat I should have in a fortnight.

I love meat. It's no exaggeration to say that earlier this year probably 90% of my diet consisted of chicken tenders and nuggets, and at other times in earlier years it's been pretty much the same but with bacon, eggs, sausages and Spam straight from the tin thrown into the mix. The problem is that meat takes a lot more land to produce than plant-based foods do. Meat consumption tends to increase with income, and globally both average incomes and total population are on the rise... but the available land surface of our planet is not increasing. Hence, demand for beef is one of the major reasons for destruction of the Amazon rainforest, for example. And to the extent that increasing demand outstrips supply, meat consumption can also be a factor in price increases which keep food off the table of the world's poorest people.

These are relatively simple facts that I've known for years, but always pushed to the back of my mind because they are uncomfortable and my rare few attempts to try vegan substitutes have not gone well.
-
So whole other kettle of swimming stuff, which arguably could be ethical if 50+% of waters were protected from fishing but, as things stand, may well be the WORST form of meat consumption.)

The calculations seem surprisingly simple, though I'd appreciate any corrections if I've gone wrong. Firstly and most importantly, we need to recognize that not all meat is equal. Following up on one of George Monbiot's citations, Machinova et al 2015 say that:
"When comparing the area needed to produce 1 kg of protein from soybeans(12m2) to the average land area required to produce common cuts of meat, chicken requires 3× more area (39m2), pork 9× more area (107m2), and beef 32× more area (377m2) (Röös et al., 2013a,2013b; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013)."

According to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, in 2013 global production of beef (and buffalo) totaled 68 million tonnes, or 68 billion kilograms. Divided by the world's population (~8 billion) and the days in a year we get (68 / 8 / 365) around 0.0233 kilograms: In other words if beef were the only meat we consumed, and we restricted our meat-producing land to areas currently producing beef, in terms of global averages we could eat around 23.3 grams of beef per person per day, slightly decreasing as and when global population exceeds 8 billion.
-
Can I ethically eat any more than this estimated average figure? I don't see how: If anything, growing population, carbon impacts, the likelihood that even beef production alone is already more natural environment than we 'should' be exploiting and -perhaps most importantly- the other moral concerns around intensive or factory-farmed beef which makes up some portion of the total would all suggest erring on the side of caution, considerably lower than that figure to really be ethical meat consumption. As far as I can tell, eating more than ~140g of beef per week would basically be equivalent to saying either that the rainforests and the rest of our terrestrial environment can go hang, or that the other PEOPLE in the world can go hang - that they must have less so that I can get what I want!

The good news is that if I eat chicken, based on those figures above arguably I can have up to ten times as much; since nuggets and tenders are only about 50% chicken, perhaps I can even have a 400g box of nuggets every single day.

I'm actually trying to cut down even below that threshold -since if nothing else I'm bound to have an occasional sausage or steak when visiting friends- and I've found that spring rolls and potato gems are just as microwavable and even as tasty as chicken. Perhaps one day I'll even succeed in going vegetarian. But for now I thought it worth sharing my struggles with this challenging issue; maybe others can relate or even offer further tips for improvement

I do appreciate those who live below their means and I try to do that.

However I see no moral imperative for this world average scheme. It's an arbitrary rule.

And the reality is, the only way to "get the plank out or your own eye" is to live in a mud hut and eat an extremely basic diet. If indeed it's immoral to have more than others.

We should help the poor as
Go's moves us though.

 

[craig]

No, nor did you offer any evidence or explanation why 'over population' is even a problem let alone the root of all problems, nor any ballpark for what in your view would be the 'correct population,' nor any ideas on how to get there. It's easy rhetoric to fall prey to; as I noted, most of the world's richest and most influential people have every incentive to amplify the 'overpopulation' myth, and most folk in wealthy countries have good reason to embrace it as a comfortable narrative too:

Because it is obvious. The human foot print on the earth is directly proportional to population.

 

[Mithrae]

Because it is obvious. The human foot print on the earth is directly proportional to population.

Not even close. It's much, much closer in proportion to consumption, which increases marginally with population and vastly with wealth. Of 188 countries listed, the median ecological footprint is around those of Mexico (#88, 2.89gha/person), Iran (#92, 2.79gha/person) or Romania (#95, 2.71gha/person). The most densely-populated large country in the world, Bangladesh has an ecological footprint of 0.72gha/person while neighbouring India with its vast population stands at 1.16gha/person; by contrast countries like Sweden (7.25), Singapore (7.97) and the United States (8.22) have six to twelve times larger footprints per person. And depending on methodology even that may be an under-estimate: If an Australian decides to buy a new TV twice a year and throw the 'old' one in the trash, and those TVs happen to be made in China, the ecological impacts of that wastefulness rightfully belong mainly to Australia but by most accounting methods will be assigned to China instead.

 

[j brown's body]

It isn't an economic issue. Materialism exists in socialist societies as well as capitalist ones. Its a spiritual issue. What do we worship? Primarily we worship money and the the things it can buy. And there is no end to that. And there is a lot of encouragement to do that. As David Foster Wallace points out in his classic This is Water speech - "the world of men and money and power hums merrily along in a pool of fear and anger and frustration and craving and worship of self. Our own present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that have yielded extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom. The freedom all to be lords of our tiny skull-sized kingdoms, alone at the centre of all creation."

So it is a spiritual crisis, not an economic one.

 

[craig]

Bangladesh has an ecological footprint of 0.72gha/person while neighbouring India with its vast population stands at 1.16gha/person; by contrast countries like Sweden (7.25), Singapore (7.97) and the United States (8.22) have six to twelve times larger footprints per person.

And you think a world wide Bangladesh is desirable?

 

[Mithrae]

And you think a world wide Bangladesh is desirable?

Evidently you're not interested in intelligent discussion. I've made numerous detailed posts in this thread explaining why overconsumption and not population is the problem, along with both some modest personal and more substantial governmental changes which would go a long way towards fixing it. How about you try actually engaging with what I've posted instead of dribbling idiocy like this?

Or alternatively, why not tell us what you think the 'correct population' for the world is and the means you think should be used to remove all the "surplus" people, as you call them?

 

[Mithrae]

I do appreciate those who live below their means and I try to do that.

However I see no moral imperative for this world average scheme. It's an arbitrary rule.

Quite the opposite, it's more or less the only objective way of evaluating consumption or hypothetically assigning 'fair' usage of resources. It's not just a moral imperative, but pretty much the Categorical Imperative - "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" - or perhaps more closely and more universally, the Golden Rule. Given limited resources, what is the justification for me to have a larger share than anyone else? The accident of where I was born? That is arbitrary. A set of economic systems developed and implemented in the context of colonial and post-colonial global power structures? That's not only arbitrary but profoundly immoral. Hypothetically we could imagine a democratized and de-colonialized world in which elements of a well-regulated market economy allow some people to have fair access to two or three times more than that world average while some have less; but we'd need to get to that utopian state first, and until then the only objective ethical (and political) stance is to acknowledge that I have no more or less right to the world's resources than anyone else on the planet... and being in a country where access to wealth is much easier doesn't change that fact.

The idea of the 'veil of ignorance' or 'original position' popularized by John Rawls seems quite relevant too:

In the original position, you are asked to consider which principles you would select for the basic structure of society, but you must select as if you had no knowledge ahead of time what position you would end up having in that society. This choice is made from behind a "veil of ignorance", which prevents you from knowing your ethnicity, social status, gender and, crucially in Rawls' formulation, your or anyone else's idea of how to lead a good life.​

Original position - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And the reality is, the only way to "get the plank out or your own eye" is to live in a mud hut and eat an extremely basic diet. If indeed it's immoral to have more than others.

That's what Jesus would tell you; if someone is in need and you have anything beyond your daily needs you have to help them. There's a clear if slightly extreme kind of logic to that, but it comes from a more overtly moral/values-based perspective of love for each other rather than a more objective/political angle of what rights of access to resources might we or should we be able to legitimately claim.

 

[poppopfox]

That's what Jesus would tell you; if someone is in need and you have anything beyond your daily needs you have to help them. There's a clear if slightly extreme kind of logic to that, but it comes from a more overtly moral/values-based perspective of love for each other rather than a more objective/political angle of what rights of access to resources might we or should we be able to legitimately claim.

Jesus was in touch with his inner buddha! Some refer to it as compassion.

 

[Simpletruther]

Quite the opposite, it's more or less the only objective way of evaluating consumption or hypothetically assigning 'fair' usage of resources. It's not just a moral imperative, but pretty much the Categorical Imperative - "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" - or perhaps more closely and more universally, the Golden Rule. Given limited resources, what is the justification for me to have a larger share than anyone else? The accident of where I was born? That is arbitrary. A set of economic systems developed and implemented in the context of colonial and post-colonial global power structures? That's not only arbitrary but profoundly immoral. Hypothetically we could imagine a democratized and de-colonialized world in which elements of a well-regulated market economy allow some people to have fair access to two or three times more than that world average while some have less; but we'd need to get to that utopian state first, and until then the only objective ethical (and political) stance is to acknowledge that I have no more or less right to the world's resources than anyone else on the planet... and being in a country where access to wealth is much easier doesn't change that fact.

The idea of the 'veil of ignorance' or 'original position' popularized by John Rawls seems quite relevant too:

In the original position, you are asked to consider which principles you would select for the basic structure of society, but you must select as if you had no knowledge ahead of time what position you would end up having in that society. This choice is made from behind a "veil of ignorance", which prevents you from knowing your ethnicity, social status, gender and, crucially in Rawls' formulation, your or anyone else's idea of how to lead a good life.​

Original position - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's what Jesus would tell you; if someone is in need and you have anything beyond your daily needs you have to help them. There's a clear if slightly extreme kind of logic to that, but it comes from a more overtly moral/values-based perspective of love for each other rather than a more objective/political angle of what rights of access to resources might we or should we be able to legitimately claim.

The justification as I see it, is
God's providence, there are no "accidents" of birth.

Many are born rich and I wasn't. I do not expect anything from them other than what God says is right. God has blessed them more materially and that is his perogative.

And Nowhere in Scripture are we told we must be "fair" and equally distribute resources.

And In fact God routinely did the opposite.

I want others to respect my property, and expect the same. I live by the Golden rule on this.