Let humans die to save the Earth?

[Maou]

I have wondered for some time now, why people are all hellbent on saving lives, but also hellbent on protecting the planet? Humans are single-handedly the reason why many species go extinct and pollution/climate change occurs. So why protect people?

Humans are empathetic/sympathetic, and don't want to watch anyone suffer... I get it. I also get that not everyone chooses to be born. How does one reconcile with this contradiction? How do you reconcile 3rd world advancement resulting in extinction of many animals? Do you want to harm/stop 3rd world progression to save the animals? That is inhumane. Telling people they cannot reproduce, is also inhumane. So why not just remove the warning labels and let nature take its course? Why not just let people die? It is for the "greater good" right? Who gets to decide or even has the right to decide who lives and who dies?

 

[Lark]

Couple of points.

People want to save planet and people as they are biophilious by nature, that is life seeking, life affirming, and that embraces both man and beast.

Consciousness is something that leads to a lot of people seeing themselves or mankind as "set apart" from nature, there's a good author I like, Fromm, who takes this as a pivotal idea which is reflected in the genesis story in the old testament. Makind if banished from the "paradise" of "pre-consciousness" much as adam and eve were from the garden of eden.

Anyway, the thing is that whether its seen as positive or negative its not entirely true to suppose that mankind is apart from nature. There's surely a lot of eco-systems and species which could and would suffer and die by mankinds disappearance. In whole (as a misanthrope may think) or in part (as a racist would say) this is the truth so far as human kind goes.

The Malthusian idea of there being "perishers", in whole or in part, who should just "die off" and all would be the better for it, is nothing more than an affirmation of a kind of Freudian death drive. If anyone is deciding that "nature" should decimate any population they are responsible and not some abstraction they have invented and called "natural".

I might believe in some sorts of consequentialism and public record, it would seem some people make their lives nothing other than a cautionary tale for others but that is not the same thing as some kind of twisted social darwinism. To be honest ideas like Malthusianism, misanthropy and social darwinism are only ever supported by people who believe they and their loved ones are exempt somehow, this stuff is great while it applies to a lot of strangers, foreigners, nobodies.

That sort of culture is not one anyone should foster, its a culture of decay, the freudian death drive is part of it but there's other aspects too it too, anyway, its not a culture of growth, prosperity and development.

 

[Lark]

Also, to be honest, you could suppress third world development in the hope that it saves animal life but the habits and consumerism of the first world is the great threat as it has a great carbon footprint and environmental impact. Not all lives are equal in their consequence/impact.

Also, what do you mean by development? Do you mean so called third world nations becoming more like the western world? Because tractors are not much use in sub-Saharan Africa, rapid adoption of industrial or other practices, modes or norms from elsewhere isnt always development at all and can actually be a costly step back.

 

[Virtual ghost]

All of this is getting a few things backwards. So in short:


1. The point of saving nature is that people don't die needlessly. Since once the nature is gone the people are gone as well, since there is no food and everything is a polluted desert.


2. The idea that you can only progress at the cost of nature is also false in the bottom line. Especially since there are more and more sophisticated means how to develop a society in a way that at least greatly lowers the impact on environment. Therefore deploying that is something on which you can build genuine development. Especially since sustainable development is the only possible development on the long run. Therefore when it comes to the third world key element in the mix is actually preventing all kinds of dictators, warlords and various companies or interest groups in the third world from destroying the habitat of their people (for the sake of personal or quick profit). Especially since allowing them that will bring down the whole biosphere and disrupt just about every food chain and local weather through complex chemical processes. There is not a person on the planet that will not be effected if things go really south in the regard.


3. I really doubt that there will be some large scale ban of birth. Although limit of having two living children could come into larger global effect, there is no real need that anyone has more and it is better that effort goes to quality instead of quantity. However in this issue only Africa still needs some evident work, since everything else is generally slowing down in this regard. Even if some countries still need some nudges in this regard.

Therefore the point of genuine environmentalism is creation of order that should nudge all kinds of things and people away from "the cliff". Instead of pushing them over the cliff.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

3. I really doubt that there will be some large scale ban of birth. Although limit of having two living children could come into larger global effect, there is no real need that anyone has more and it is better that effort goes to quality instead of quantity. However in this issue only Africa still needs some evident work, since everything else is generally slowing down in this regard. Even if some countries still need some nudges in this regard.


.

Yeah, the idea of overpopulation is a myth. Things are stabilizing. The issue is that some parts of the world consume way more resources than the other parts, even the parts that have high levels of population growth. The issue isn't people reproducing, it's how people in wealthier countries are using the resources.

 

[Lark]

Yeah, the idea of overpopulation is a myth. Things are stabilizing. The issue is that some parts of the world consume way more resources than the other parts, even the parts that have high levels of population growth. The issue isn't people reproducing, it's how people in wealthier countries are using the resources.

100%

The idea that development everywhere will mimic what has happened in the west is a mistake too.

I also wonder why anyone would want to given the toxic character of it, ramping of addictive traits etc. etc.

Some of the apparently most impoverished rural regions of China, for instance, have populations experiencing greater longevity, greater happiness and better health than the rest of the world. They may not have wi fi, mobile phones, apps and facebook but they seem to cope alright.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yeah, the idea of overpopulation is a myth. Things are stabilizing. The issue is that some parts of the world consume way more resources than the other parts, even the parts that have high levels of population growth. The issue isn't people reproducing, it's how people in wealthier countries are using the resources.

That is not what I said.
How poorer countries are using the resources actually matters and has a fair chunk in the equation, especially since their population is much larger and their environmental laws are often truly none existent (or unenforced). The only way to prevent the biosphere crash is that everyone does their part. Therefore cutting forests to free the space for population growth while not having any environmental laws and regulations whatsoever plays a part in all this.

Also 3 children per mother is still 50% population growth in a generation, what can quickly multiply over a few generations. However that is still visibly better than how it used be, although when the base is larger you can have larger growth of the population with fewer children per mother. Especially if the average life span is going up, what is the factor that is often overlooked. My point was more that this side of the equation is slowly getting solved, unlike some other parts of the global equation. Where the setback is much more obvious.

 

[Lark]

That is not what I said.
How poorer countries are using the resources actually matters and has a fair chunk in the equation, especially since their population is much larger and their environmental laws are often truly none existent (or unenforced). The only way to prevent the biosphere crash is that everyone does their part. Therefore cutting forests to free the space for population growth while not having any environmental laws and regulations whatsoever plays a part in all this.

Also 3 children per mother is still 50% population growth in a generation, what can quickly multiply over a few generations. However that is still visibly better than how it used be, although when the base is larger you can have larger growth of the population with fewer children per mother. Especially if the average life span is going up, what is the factor that is often overlooked. My point was more that this side of the equation is slowly getting solved, unlike some other parts of the global equation. Where the setback is much more obvious.

Where is the average life span going up? In the parts of the world that you are saying barely have environmental or other regulations?

Forests arent being cleared for population growth at all, they're being cleared because the lumber has a cash value, and the land can be used for intensive cattle grazing to feed the first world. This whole business practice has been exported to the third world as environmental protections tighten up elsewhere. Its the same with corporate dumping, there are lots of disposable of short dated pharma and industrial products dumped on the third world, saves on the pollution costs of companies and states in the west but gets blamed on "development" and "over population".

Disorder, war, disease, child conscription into violent conflict, famine arising from omissions, neglect and the incapacity of states to resist enforcement of UN and WHO free market fiscal disciplines and structural adjustments. I dont expect any of those populations to experience a life expectancy similar to the second or first worlds. Even less the consumer lifestyle with attendant carbon footprint and environmental impact costs per head of population.

 

[Lark]

It all hinges on whether or not you're writing off entire populations or entire parts of the population as "useless eaters", its thinking that long predates WW2 and the "usual suspects" since it was deliberate policy at the time of the Irish Famine, an atrocity so terrible that the indigenous victims of the death march "trail of tears" in the US decided to raise relief funds.

Someone has always been trying to kill people judged surplus to requirement or complaining "the poor are too many" or the "perishers" are not dying off quickly enough. Its a wicked mindset given over to the death drive and a sign of decay.

 

[Lark]

Why Malthus Is Still Wrong - Scientific American

 

[agentwashington]

There are studies that show that the world's richest population use up most of the world's energy and waste the most food. If anyone should die, it should be them. But in practice, they aren't going to die.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Where is the average life span going up? In the parts of the world that you are saying barely have environmental or other regulations?

Forests arent being cleared for population growth at all, they're being cleared because the lumber has a cash value, and the land can be used for intensive cattle grazing to feed the first world. This whole business practice has been exported to the third world as environmental protections tighten up elsewhere. Its the same with corporate dumping, there are lots of disposable of short dated pharma and industrial products dumped on the third world, saves on the pollution costs of companies and states in the west but gets blamed on "development" and "over population".

Disorder, war, disease, child conscription into violent conflict, famine arising from omissions, neglect and the incapacity of states to resist enforcement of UN and WHO free market fiscal disciplines and structural adjustments. I dont expect any of those populations to experience a life expectancy similar to the second or first worlds. Even less the consumer lifestyle with attendant carbon footprint and environmental impact costs per head of population.

Life span is generally going up around the world over the last several decades and that added a decent chunk to the global population growth. Also rising life span can happen even if there is pollution around, that isn't the only factor that effects this. In other words since there is more people now they should all be more responsible, regardless of which country they are living. For example India with 100 million people and modern India with 1300 million people just can't be the same place, you simply need a room for all that people and their crops, housing, business, infrastructure .... etc. Therefore you have to take that from nature and once you clear out the nature it's mass by good margin turns into the carbon dioxide (especially since it is usually burned around the world). Even if you cut out the first world and it's consumption there are still local problems in this regard, since their local practices are still generally unsustainable. What basically works for all countries out there and over 20th century there was a boom in this regard. That now needs to be guided in order to diver a disaster. Especially since resource mismanagement and not enough of resources is basically the main source of wars and instability (water is obvious example). What in the end only further add to the mismanagement and misery. Advocating killing people and admitting there is a problem in this regard are for me two completely different things. The whole point is that people don't die.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Why Malthus Is Still Wrong - Scientific American

Malthus ? Seriously, that is centuries old ideas and you should perhaps start reading scientific 21th century stuff on the issue.


Plus this is basically subtle free market propaganda you are so disgusted with. Just read the last paragraph.
The bottom line of all this is that the market and civilization will be eternal and that there is nothing to worry about in the environmental sphere. What evidently isn't the case and that will actually cause mass death.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Here are some direct third world examples that I found quickly on random:


Google earth Kenya

Google earth Indonesia

Google earth Peru

Goggle earth Mexico city from space, the scale is in lower right corner

Etc.



Therefore even the third world will have to take the effort to address the environmental problems, for the sake of it's own people. The first world can go super clean and moral but that wouldn't mean a thing if second and third world don't play a long. This really has to be global effort since we all share the same atmosphere, which dictates our food and water supply though complex geochemical and geophysical processes.

 

[Lark]

Malthus ? Seriously, that is centuries old ideas and you should perhaps start reading scientific 21th century stuff on the issue.


Plus this is basically subtle free market propaganda you are so disgusted with. Just read the last paragraph.
The bottom line of all this is that the market and civilization will be eternal and that there is nothing to worry about in the environmental sphere. What evidently isn't the case and that will actually cause mass death.

No, that's not the case at all, plus Malthus' thinking informs way more than you think. The OP for instance but sure, an old philosopher you've not read and that's all you need to know about that.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The google says Malthus died in 1834. what means that in my book he simply isn't the most competent person around to say something about the problem of the modern world. Since his work from 200 years ago is simply too simplistic for what we have on the field right now. If you want to go deeper into the understanding of why world in it's current form is on shaky grounds you must go much deeper into the science and talk about stuff like: ice caps and their dynamics, formulas that define the nature of gases, rainfall and what keeps them at the amounts as he know them, electrotechnics and making reliable sensors, complications and benefits of modern mining, metallurgy and it's limits, urban planing in all of it's complexity, interactions of chemical waste with chemistry of each natural environment, soil health, fertilizers and how they are made, climate science, energetics and energy consumption, all kinds of braking the laws regarding the environment, insufficient laws, the anatomy of glaciers and their importance for our food supply, natural food chains, sea acidification and how that effects current world order, methane time bomb, ..... etc, etc. Therefore debating this topic through the prism of the philosopher from 200 years ago is simply missing the more complex and up to date elements.

 

[Lark]

The google says Malthus died in 1834. what means that in my book he simply isn't the most competent person around to say something about the problem of the modern world. Since his work from 200 years ago is simply too simplistic for what we have on the field right now. If you want to go deeper into the understanding of why world in it's current form is on shaky grounds you must go much deeper into the science and talk about stuff like: ice caps and their dynamics, formulas that define the nature of gases, rainfall and what keeps them at the amounts as he know them, electrotechnics and making reliable sensors, complications and benefits of modern mining, metallurgy and it's limits, urban planing in all of it's complexity, interactions of chemical waste with chemistry of each natural environment, soil health, fertilizers and how they are made, climate science, energetics and energy consumption, all kinds of braking the laws regarding the environment, insufficient laws, the anatomy of glaciers and their importance for our food supply, natural food chains, sea acidification and how that effects current world order, methane time bomb, ..... etc, etc. Therefore debating this topic through the prism of the philosopher from 200 years ago is simply missing the more complex and up to date elements.

There's this crazy thing about humans, especially published authors, their ideas live on after they are dead.

 

[Lark]

Anyway, this entire thread is an abstraction.

Who is meant by "humans"? Who is going to "let them die"? What is involved in that?

I never hear anyone talk like this and follow it up with "And lets start with me and the people I'm living with right now".

 

[Virtual ghost]

There's this crazy thing about humans, especially published authors, their ideas live on after they are dead.

The writings can survive physically but the ideas can be disproved or upgraded. That is kinda what the progress fundamentally is.

 

[Mole]

I can remember when the cry went out, "Let the dinosaurs die to save the Earth!". How'd that work out?