• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Operation save planet

Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
299
Reaction score
56
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In only 200 years human population went from 1 billion to 7 billion!

Humans are like a virus that spreads and destroys the host, in our case planet earth. The amount of vegetation and wild life we have destroyed is nothing to be taken lightly.

We keep spreading, destroying forests and wildlife for shelter and agriculture. Everyone with half a brain knows that the planet will not be able to sustain human race unless drastic measures are taken to curb population growth.

We need to start thinking about what drastic measures to take to put a stop to this uncontrolled spreading of the planet’s most destructive living organism.

Limit children to 2? Limit agriculture and find substitutes to cattle? I don’t see how planet can support us for next 200-400 years... people tend to think about now, next 5 years, never a lifetime away..
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,746
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In only 200 years human population went from 1 billion to 7 billion!

Humans are like a virus that spreads and destroys the host, in our case planet earth. The amount of vegetation and wild life we have destroyed is nothing to be taken lightly.

We keep spreading, destroying forests and wildlife for shelter and agriculture. Everyone with half a brain knows that the planet will not be able to sustain human race unless drastic measures are taken to curb population growth.

We need to start thinking about what drastic measures to take to put a stop to this uncontrolled spreading of the planet’s most destructive living organism.

Limit children to 2? Limit agriculture and find substitutes to cattle? I don’t see how planet can support us for next 200-400 years... people tend to think about now, next 5 years, never a lifetime away..

We are way way way way too incompetent to manage our population effectively.

Starvation and Disease will be the correctives.

Either that or nuclear weapons.

It is going to be brutal.
 
Last edited:

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
7,306
Reaction score
3,541
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Everyone with half a brain knows that the planet will not be able to sustain human race unless drastic measures are taken to curb population growth.

Okay. But what do people with a full brain know? :lol:

'Overpopulation' is a buzzword which amounts to little more than the rich world scape-goating the poor, not least because population growth has slowed or reversed in richer countries. Yes, the bottom nine-tenths of world population do have environmental impacts of their own; but it's the top 9% who own over 85% of global wealth and by implication contribute over three-quarters of our species' environmental impacts.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...l-pyramid-of-wealth-infographic/#67ff245c558b
20171115_Pyramid.jpg

It's a pretty big planet - there's more than enough land and resources to satisfy ten billion people's needs, if it comes to it. But there is far, far too little to satisfy even one billion people's greed.

Before we start talking about restrictions on having children - one of the most biologically and existentially important things we do - maybe we should talk a little about the greed-driven, advertising-saturated materialistic over-consumption orgy that we call our 'culture' first? Christmas being perhaps the best time of year to do so...
 
Last edited:

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
18,049
Reaction score
4,907
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In only 200 years human population went from 1 billion to 7 billion!

Humans are like a virus that spreads and destroys the host, in our case planet earth. The amount of vegetation and wild life we have destroyed is nothing to be taken lightly.

We keep spreading, destroying forests and wildlife for shelter and agriculture. Everyone with half a brain knows that the planet will not be able to sustain human race unless drastic measures are taken to curb population growth.

We need to start thinking about what drastic measures to take to put a stop to this uncontrolled spreading of the planet’s most destructive living organism.

Limit children to 2? Limit agriculture and find substitutes to cattle? I don’t see how planet can support us for next 200-400 years... people tend to think about now, next 5 years, never a lifetime away..



This post encapsulates the entire anti human ethos that environmentalists want to indoctrinate us with. Your extreme self loathing and disdain for your species is absolute and like any fundamentalist can never be purged.

PS In the last 40 years or so the Earth has actually gotten greener despite its human 'virus'


https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2
 
Last edited:

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,827
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In only 200 years human population went from 1 billion to 7 billion!

Humans are like a virus that spreads and destroys the host, in our case planet earth. The amount of vegetation and wild life we have destroyed is nothing to be taken lightly.

We keep spreading, destroying forests and wildlife for shelter and agriculture. Everyone with half a brain knows that the planet will not be able to sustain human race unless drastic measures are taken to curb population growth.

We need to start thinking about what drastic measures to take to put a stop to this uncontrolled spreading of the planet’s most destructive living organism.

Limit children to 2? Limit agriculture and find substitutes to cattle? I don’t see how planet can support us for next 200-400 years... people tend to think about now, next 5 years, never a lifetime away..

It is pathetic that you are such a trator to humanity.

This video explains why we will not have a masive overpopulation problem;


https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth?language=en
 

Airyaman

New Druid
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
19,868
Reaction score
17,543
Location
AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In only 200 years human population went from 1 billion to 7 billion!

Humans are like a virus that spreads and destroys the host, in our case planet earth. The amount of vegetation and wild life we have destroyed is nothing to be taken lightly.

We keep spreading, destroying forests and wildlife for shelter and agriculture. Everyone with half a brain knows that the planet will not be able to sustain human race unless drastic measures are taken to curb population growth.

We need to start thinking about what drastic measures to take to put a stop to this uncontrolled spreading of the planet’s most destructive living organism.

Limit children to 2? Limit agriculture and find substitutes to cattle? I don’t see how planet can support us for next 200-400 years... people tend to think about now, next 5 years, never a lifetime away..

So does this mean you are going to off yourself?
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,339
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In only 200 years human population went from 1 billion to 7 billion!

Humans are like a virus that spreads and destroys the host, in our case planet earth. The amount of vegetation and wild life we have destroyed is nothing to be taken lightly.

We keep spreading, destroying forests and wildlife for shelter and agriculture. Everyone with half a brain knows that the planet will not be able to sustain human race unless drastic measures are taken to curb population growth.

We need to start thinking about what drastic measures to take to put a stop to this uncontrolled spreading of the planet’s most destructive living organism.

Limit children to 2? Limit agriculture and find substitutes to cattle? I don’t see how planet can support us for next 200-400 years... people tend to think about now, next 5 years, never a lifetime away..

I suggest you read Steven Pinker's new book and calm down.


[h=3]Things really aren’t that bad. But we like to think they are.[/h]
In many ways, life is getting better.







 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
7,306
Reaction score
3,541
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This post encapsulates the entire anti human ethos that environmentalists want to indoctrinate us with.

Exactly what in his post suggests to you that he is an environmentalist, as opposed to any other regular person disturbed by the loss of 50% of all animals in the past forty years? Seems to me that's the kind of thing which any sane person would be shocked by. Or should I say, any sane person.

The misdiagnosis of the problem as 'overpopulation' - fostered in no small part by wealthier folk who for obvious reasons are loathe to acknowledge overconsumption - is certainly disturbing. But equally worrying is your instant knee-jerk reaction of trying to find some other scapegoat group to target and demonize; not even misdiagnosing, but deliberately fostering hatred and contempt of your fellow human beings without apparently giving a damn about the actual problem raised at all!
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,339
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Exactly what in his post suggests to you that he is an environmentalist, as opposed to any other regular person disturbed by the loss of 50% of all animals in the past forty years? Seems to me that's the kind of thing which any sane person would be shocked by. Or should I say, any sane person.

The misdiagnosis of the problem as 'overpopulation' - fostered in no small part by wealthier folk who for obvious reasons are loathe to acknowledge overconsumption - is certainly disturbing. But equally worrying is your instant knee-jerk reaction of trying to find some other scapegoat group to target and demonize; not even misdiagnosing, but deliberately fostering hatred and contempt of your fellow human beings without apparently giving a damn about the actual problem raised at all!

From the link in #7:

". . . In our day, the task of rebutting the pessimists has fallen to Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker, whose contribution is the best one yet. In “Enlightenment Now,” Pinker catalogues the irrefutable evidence that “life has gotten longer, healthier, richer, safer, happier, freer, smarter, deeper, and more interesting,” through the application of reason, science and humanism. It is only the abandonment of those Enlightenment ideals, he says, that can threaten humankind’s continued upward trajectory.
One by one, the author exposes alleged crises as overhyped, misrepresented or, in many cases, just plain wrong. Deaths from war and genocide have plummeted; genuine poverty and hunger are in steep decline, and famine has virtually disappeared; economic inequality is vastly overstated in the United States and is shrinking dramatically worldwide. Life expectancy in the poorest country on Earth is now nine years greater than it was in the richest country two centuries ago. . . . "
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
7,306
Reaction score
3,541
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
From the link in #7:

". . . In our day, the task of rebutting the pessimists has fallen to Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker, whose contribution is the best one yet. In “Enlightenment Now,” Pinker catalogues the irrefutable evidence that “life has gotten longer, healthier, richer, safer, happier, freer, smarter, deeper, and more interesting,” through the application of reason, science and humanism. It is only the abandonment of those Enlightenment ideals, he says, that can threaten humankind’s continued upward trajectory.
One by one, the author exposes alleged crises as overhyped, misrepresented or, in many cases, just plain wrong. Deaths from war and genocide have plummeted; genuine poverty and hunger are in steep decline, and famine has virtually disappeared; economic inequality is vastly overstated in the United States and is shrinking dramatically worldwide. Life expectancy in the poorest country on Earth is now nine years greater than it was in the richest country two centuries ago. . . . "

None of which addresses any point I raised.

However it's worth noting that what is now approaching almost 24/7 bombardment with advertising and consumerist/materialist culture and values does pretty much fit the trajectory of "abandonment of those enlightenment ideals" and much of our fundamentally human characteristics. I imagine that Epicurus himself would be shocked and appalled at the culture of mindless self-gratification and extrinsic values which the marketing industry is developing, from childhood on up and drawing on ever more sophisticated psychological knowledge, on behalf of various other industries. It is axiomatic that a content person has nothing they want to buy, after all, meaning that the overall impetus of marketing strategies in our societies must tend towards promoting an endless ladder of dissatisfaction, and we need only look at the millionaires who still want more and the billionaires who still want more and the mega-billionaires who still want more to see how that works out. Capitalism, like religion, has done some wonderful things, but we'd be fools to blithely ignore the inherent risks and dangerous trends.

 
Last edited:

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,827
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Exactly what in his post suggests to you that he is an environmentalist, as opposed to any other regular person disturbed by the loss of 50% of all animals in the past forty years? Seems to me that's the kind of thing which any sane person would be shocked by. Or should I say, any sane person.

The misdiagnosis of the problem as 'overpopulation' - fostered in no small part by wealthier folk who for obvious reasons are loathe to acknowledge overconsumption - is certainly disturbing. But equally worrying is your instant knee-jerk reaction of trying to find some other scapegoat group to target and demonize; not even misdiagnosing, but deliberately fostering hatred and contempt of your fellow human beings without apparently giving a damn about the actual problem raised at all!

So that would be large land animals.

Given that the biggest single policy that has impacted this is the quest for biofuel, thanks the green lobby and the agri-lobby, due to hype over CO2 what do you suggest happens?


A European Commission study to be published shortly is expected to reveal that greenhouse gas emissions associated with biofuels made from oilseed crops such as rapeseed, soy and palm oil, in particular, may exceed emissions from fossil fuels. This is because of emissions resulting from ‘indirect land use change’: the conversion of land-types that store carbon, such as forests, grasslands and peatlands, into farmland to grow crops for food, feed and fibres that have been displaced by fuel crops.

https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-eu-unit/en/Publications/2011/Biodiesel-tested/
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,339
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
None of which addresses any point I raised.

However it's worth noting that what is now approaching almost 24/7 bombardment with advertising and consumerist/materialist culture and values does pretty much fit the trajectory of "abandonment of those enlightenment ideals" and much of our fundamentally human characteristics. I imagine that Epicurus himself would be shocked and appalled at the culture of mindless self-gratification and extrinsic values which the marketing industry is developing, from childhood on up and drawing on ever more sophisticated psychological knowledge, on behalf of various other industries. It is axiomatic that a content person has nothing they want to buy, after all, meaning that the overall impetus of marketing strategies in our societies must tend towards promoting an endless ladder of dissatisfaction, and we need only look at the millionaires who still want more and the billionaires who still want more and the mega-billionaires who still want more to see how that works out. Capitalism, like religion, has done some wonderful things, but we'd be fools to blithely ignore the inherent risks and dangerous trends.



Fantasy piled on fantasy . . . .
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
7,306
Reaction score
3,541
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fantasy piled on fantasy . . . .

And I thought Tim's response was bad; at least he tried, in his own way. If you're incapable of an intelligent response, probably best not to jump in next time ;)
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,339
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And I thought Tim's response was bad; at least he tried, in his own way. If you're incapable of an intelligent response, probably best not to jump in next time ;)

Your post was a paranoid fantasy. It merited no more response.
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
7,306
Reaction score
3,541
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Your post was a paranoid fantasy. It merited no more response.

And yet you have responded more trying to convince yourself and others that single-line insults have somehow become a substitute for intelligent discussion. There's always room for discussion of nuance on such a broad topic (which would have been refreshing and perhaps enlightening), but if in fact there were anything so obviously and blatantly incorrect in my post as you're struggling to imply, an intelligent response would certainly have pointed them out. That you failed to do so suggests either that you're not too bright, which I don't think is the case, or that in the absence of any real damning criticism you have merely made yourself appear rather silly. If anything, your knee-jerk dogmatism pretty much reinforces my point that an ever-increasingly more consumerist culture seems to be an anti-enlightenment trajectory.
 
Last edited:

Verax

Disappointed in Trump
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
12,240
Reaction score
4,519
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
From the link in #7:

". . . In our day, the task of rebutting the pessimists has fallen to Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker, whose contribution is the best one yet. In “Enlightenment Now,” Pinker catalogues the irrefutable evidence that “life has gotten longer, healthier, richer, safer, happier, freer, smarter, deeper, and more interesting,” through the application of reason, science and humanism. It is only the abandonment of those Enlightenment ideals, he says, that can threaten humankind’s continued upward trajectory.
One by one, the author exposes alleged crises as overhyped, misrepresented or, in many cases, just plain wrong. Deaths from war and genocide have plummeted; genuine poverty and hunger are in steep decline, and famine has virtually disappeared; economic inequality is vastly overstated in the United States and is shrinking dramatically worldwide. Life expectancy in the poorest country on Earth is now nine years greater than it was in the richest country two centuries ago. . . . "

Nice strawman appeal to authority. Dropping Pinker in there (somebody who is actually respected) makes it seem like he underwrites the authors' argument. Pinker is absolutely right that things are getting better, however the argument here is that those at the bottom should shutup and be happy with what they have because things are better than they used to be. Sounds an awful lot like sugar coated oppression. Only a fool would submit to this when there are genuine issues that deeply and unjustly negatively effect the lives of billions.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,339
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And yet you have responded more trying to convince yourself and others that single-line insults have somehow become a substitute for intelligent discussion. There's always room for discussion of nuance on such a broad topic (which would have been refreshing and perhaps enlightening), but if in fact there were anything so obviously and blatantly incorrect in my post as you're struggling to imply, an intelligent response would certainly have pointed them out. That you failed to do so suggests either that you're not too bright, which I don't think is the case, or that in the absence of any real damning criticism you have merely made yourself appear rather silly. If anything, your knee-jerk dogmatism pretty much reinforces my point that an ever-increasingly more consumerist culture seems to be an anti-enlightenment trajectory.

The "marketing industry" is not driving the world mad, or even making it mildly dysfunctional. Human nature, including acquisitiveness, is comfortingly constant, and as consumption increases so does supply.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,339
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Nice strawman appeal to authority. Dropping Pinker in there (somebody who is actually respected) makes it seem like he underwrites the authors' argument. Pinker is absolutely right that things are getting better, however the argument here is that those at the bottom should shutup and be happy with what they have because things are better than they used to be. Sounds an awful lot like sugar coated oppression. Only a fool would submit to this when there are genuine issues that deeply and unjustly negatively effect the lives of billions.

That's because Pinker does underwrite the author's argument.
 

Verax

Disappointed in Trump
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
12,240
Reaction score
4,519
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
That's because Pinker does underwrite the author's argument.

So let me get this right. Because civilization is advancing, it means nobody should complain and try to make things better for those that are the worst off?
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,339
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So let me get this right. Because civilization is advancing, it means nobody should complain and try to make things better for those that are the worst off?

No one has said anyone should stop complaining or stop trying to make things better. What Pinker says, however, is that our perceptions are too often inaccurate. From the link in #7:

". . . If a 453-page book, dense with facts and averaging one chart or graph every six pages, can be a delightful read, this one is it. Pinker enlivens it with aphorisms from the past (“The Stone Age didn’t end because the world ran out of stones”) and of his own devising: “Despair springs eternal,” and “Intellectuals hate progress. Those who call themselves progressives really hate progress.”
In touting the epistemological superiority of science, the book is harshly dismissive of religion. Pinker strikes out at “right-wing politicians” and their disrespect for empirical facts. But he is equally direct in criticizing “politicized repression of science . . . from the left” on matters such as overpopulation and genetically modified organisms.


Where Pinker goes beyond his doom-dispelling predecessors is in explaining why so many people so readily accept pessimistic predictions or wild conspiracy theories. He walks the reader through such phenomena as the availability heuristic (we overestimate the frequency or probability of things that are shocking or otherwise memorable), negativity bias (we dread losses more than we enjoy gains, dwell on setbacks more than we savor good fortune) and identity-protective cognition. We are awash in this last syndrome today, on both left and right, as “certain beliefs become symbols of cultural allegiance,” however unfounded those beliefs may be.
Given the way we humans take progress for granted, “enlightenment now” will not be the last corrective required. Somewhere out there a farsighted doctoral student should start collecting data for the next era when, despite all the evidence, people are disinclined to believe that life is getting better."
 

Verax

Disappointed in Trump
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
12,240
Reaction score
4,519
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
No one has said anyone should stop complaining or stop trying to make things better. What Pinker says, however, is that our perceptions are too often inaccurate. From the link in #7:

". . . If a 453-page book, dense with facts and averaging one chart or graph every six pages, can be a delightful read, this one is it. Pinker enlivens it with aphorisms from the past (“The Stone Age didn’t end because the world ran out of stones”) and of his own devising: “Despair springs eternal,” and “Intellectuals hate progress. Those who call themselves progressives really hate progress.”
In touting the epistemological superiority of science, the book is harshly dismissive of religion. Pinker strikes out at “right-wing politicians” and their disrespect for empirical facts. But he is equally direct in criticizing “politicized repression of science . . . from the left” on matters such as overpopulation and genetically modified organisms.


Where Pinker goes beyond his doom-dispelling predecessors is in explaining why so many people so readily accept pessimistic predictions or wild conspiracy theories. He walks the reader through such phenomena as the availability heuristic (we overestimate the frequency or probability of things that are shocking or otherwise memorable), negativity bias (we dread losses more than we enjoy gains, dwell on setbacks more than we savor good fortune) and identity-protective cognition. We are awash in this last syndrome today, on both left and right, as “certain beliefs become symbols of cultural allegiance,” however unfounded those beliefs may be.
Given the way we humans take progress for granted, “enlightenment now” will not be the last corrective required. Somewhere out there a farsighted doctoral student should start collecting data for the next era when, despite all the evidence, people are disinclined to believe that life is getting better."

You see, you're only focusing on the "things are getting better" part. The problem with your article is how it takes that and runs.

genuine poverty and hunger are in steep decline, and famine has virtually disappeared; economic inequality is vastly overstated in the United States

This is where it goes errant. It conflates progress with acceptance. There are still hungry people in the world, there are kids that go to school hungry in the U.S. There are people who die from lack of healthcare in the U.S.

I imagine your touting of this is all about your desire for climate change to not be seen as a serious problem because in this translation of Pinker's work, suddenly there are no real problems and everything is great, we should all just be happy and not worry about anything. It is precisely the people who do worry, who do something about these problems that makes things better.

The idea that "progressives really hate progress" and that's all there is to it is a broad generalization. Some of those "progress hating" people fought for civil rights, gay rights, the rights of everyone. That's just an appeal to authority and ridiculous.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,339
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You see, you're only focusing on the "things are getting better" part. The problem with your article is how it takes that and runs.



This is where it goes errant. It conflates progress with acceptance. There are still hungry people in the world, there are kids that go to school hungry in the U.S. There are people who die from lack of healthcare in the U.S.

I imagine your touting of this is all about your desire for climate change to not be seen as a serious problem because in this translation of Pinker's work, suddenly there are no real problems and everything is great, we should all just be happy and not worry about anything. It is precisely the people who do worry, who do something about these problems that makes things better.

The idea that "progressives really hate progress" and that's all there is to it is a broad generalization. Some of those "progress hating" people fought for civil rights, gay rights, the rights of everyone. That's just an appeal to authority and ridiculous.

Your misreading of Pinker, Daniels and myself is total (and just a little self-serving).
 
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
299
Reaction score
56
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We are way way way way too incompetent to manage our population effectively.

Starvation and Disease will be the correctives.

Either that or nuclear weapons.

It is going to be brutal.

Speak for yourself
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
7,306
Reaction score
3,541
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The "marketing industry" is not driving the world mad, or even making it mildly dysfunctional. Human nature, including acquisitiveness, is comfortingly constant, and as consumption increases so does supply.

One of the more basic elements of human nature would be a tendency towards tribalism, yet a good case could be made that it has not remained constant but rather declined over the past centuries - or certainly at the very least shifted away from geographical and ethnic prejudices - and a large part of that is due to passive or indirect consequences of improvements in communications and travel. If largely passive developments can so noticeably counteract a basic element of human nature, why on earth would you assume that our active and culturally-ubiquitous push towards acquisitiveness would have no effect at all? Especially when all indications seem to be that we are in fact consuming more and aspiring for more wealth?

A 2005 paper by researchers at the economics department in the University of Milan:
This paper argues that television viewing produces higher material aspirations, by enhancing both adaptation and positional effects, thus lowering the effect of income on life satisfaction. Using individual data from the World Values Survey we present evidence indicating that the effect of income on both life and financial satisfaction is significantly smaller for heavy television viewers, relative to occasional viewers. This finding is robust to a number of specification checks and alternative interpretations. Overall, the results can be interpreted as providing an additional explanation for the income-happiness paradox: the pervasive and increasing role of television viewing in people’s life, by raising material aspirations, reduces the effect of income on individual happiness.​

One Rolex short of contentment, published in the Guardian December 2013
There has long been a correlation observed between materialism, a lack of empathy and engagement with others, and unhappiness. But research conducted over the past few years seems to show causation. For example, a series of studies published in the journal Motivation and Emotion in July showed that as people become more materialistic, their wellbeing (good relationships, autonomy, sense of purpose and the rest) diminishes. As they become less materialistic, it rises.

In one study, the researchers tested a group of 18-year-olds, then re-tested them 12 years later. They were asked to rank the importance of different goals – jobs, money and status on one side, and self-acceptance, fellow feeling and belonging on the other. They were then given a standard diagnostic test to identify mental health problems. At the ages of both 18 and 30, materialistic people were more susceptible to disorders. But if in that period they became less materialistic, they became happier. . . .


These studies, while suggestive, demonstrate only correlation. But the researchers then put a group of adolescents through a church programme designed to steer children away from spending and towards sharing and saving. The self-esteem of materialistic children on the programme rose significantly, while that of materialistic children in the control group fell. Those who had little interest in materialism before the programme experienced no change in self-esteem.

Another paper, published in Psychological Science, found that people in a controlled experiment who were repeatedly exposed to images of luxury goods, to messages that cast them as consumers rather than citizens and to words associated with materialism (such as buy, status, asset and expensive), experienced immediate but temporary increases in material aspirations, anxiety and depression. They also became more competitive and more selfish, had a reduced sense of social responsibility and were less inclined to join in demanding social activities. The researchers point out that, as we are repeatedly bombarded with such images through advertisements, and constantly described by the media as consumers, these temporary effects could be triggered more or less continuously.​

In terms of the thread topic, these findings might help explain why we often seem to scarcely even care - at least on a social/policy level - about the effect which our overconsumption is having on the planet's other species, on the broader environment and ultimately on future generations.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom