Thought experiment

[UndercoverElephant]

We have global population crisis.

You have yet to show that, UE.

It is self-evident, AndySir.

Is it any wonder people repeatedly suggest a hidden agenda when you bring this stuff up?

Actually, almost nobody repeatedly suggests I have a hidden agenda apart from you. I think it is pretty obvious what sort of agenda I have - no part of it is hidden. I think there's too many people on this planet, that we are collectively incapable of dealing with the ecological problems we're creating, and that therefore we need to start thinking very differently about where we should be going from here. You, for reasons known only to yourself, have decided that I'm secretly some sort of white supremacist. This is your problem, not mine. If lots of people believed that, then I might worry about it. But they don't.

[AndySir]

It is self-evident, AndySir.

Ah yes, the best kind of thought experiment is one which requires neither proof nor explanation. That way you always know what the result will be without any of that tedious fiddling of the data.

[UndercoverElephant]

It is self-evident, AndySir.

Ah yes, the best kind of thought experiment is one which requires neither proof nor explanation. That way you always know what the result will be without any of that tedious fiddling of the data.

No, Mr Sir. It is self-evident that we have a population problem. What is not self-evident is what, if anything, should be done about it.

Thought experiments, by their nature, require no proof. If they were backed up by proof then they'd be science, not thought experiments.

[AndySir]

As a philosopher you know it's not self-evident in epistemology. It's a statement of fact and therefore not a moral truth and I can find any number of analyses which say it's not true, so it's clearly not obvious by simple inspection. Why would you claim it's self-evident?

[Atman]

Can I interrupt? It's 0735 and the caffeine hasn't taken effect so this argument could be weak. I'd say it's a crisis, from a human perspective because:

1. Humans don't want themselves, their offspring or friends to die.
2. 7 billion humans clearly exceeds the carrying capacity of the planet [citations easily found obviously].
3. Exceeding the carrying capacity will inevitably lead to more early deaths.
4. Humans, to live sustainably, i.e. to not degrade the environment, need to resort to a stone age live-style.
5. Almost no-one is doing this now, and almost no-one wants to do this.
6. Carrying capacity will continue to fall, deaths will continue to rise, humans will continue to ignore all this. I'd say that's a huge problem.

Edit: typo

[biffvernon]

7 billion humans clearly exceeds the carrying capacity of the planet [citations easily found obviously].

That is the dodgy bit and saying it is clear and obvious does not make it less dodgy. As I've said many times, I would prefer there to be fewer people, but my preferences don't stand for much. The fact is that one cannot say a particular number of people exceeds the carrying capacity without first describing the impact of those people. It does not take a sophisticated analysis to see that the incoming solar energy flux far exceeds any conceivable energy requirements that 10 billion people might have so it comes down to behaviour. Behaviour is, in this context, about an order of magnitude more significant than population numbers.

And there won't be any going back to the stone age as a lot of stuff that has been learnt will not be forgotten.

[AndySir]

Plus, if you've been reading Moonbot lately, stone age man seems to have been responsible for extinction on a mammoth (excuse the pun) scale.

[UndercoverElephant]

7 billion humans clearly exceeds the carrying capacity of the planet [citations easily found obviously].

That is the dodgy bit and saying it is clear and obvious does not make it less dodgy. As I've said many times, I would prefer there to be fewer people, but my preferences don't stand for much. The fact is that one cannot say a particular number of people exceeds the carrying capacity without first describing the impact of those people.

Actually, it is completely irrelevant. Why? Because the vast majority of those who are not having a large impact are not in that situation out of choice.

There is a tiny minority at the top who have more wealth than they could possibly ever spend. This is a problem in terms of social justice, but there is a limit to how much ecological damage they can do because there are so few of them. Then there is a much larger population (say 1 billion) who live in reasonably developed countries and have a relatively large impact. Below them are further layers which get progressively bigger as the impact gets progressively lower, but almost the entire population underneath the very top layer is trying to increase their wealth and thereby increase their ability to consume more and have more impact. The number of people who are choosing to limit their impact out of respect for the ecosystem and their descendents is so small as to be utterly irrelevant. It makes a difference to their "soul" maybe. It sets an example maybe (though few will follow it). But in terms of making a difference to the overall impact it is utterly irrelevant, because any resources they aren't using are just going to get used by somebody else who belongs to the overwhelming majority who are trying to consume more by becoming more wealthy.

So I'm afraid your argument is a red herring, Biff. Since there is no way that the majority of humans are ever going to change their ways and join that tiny minority who are consuming less out of choice, the only thing that actually matters is the overall number of humans. The only way we, as a species, are going to stop f***ing this planet up is when there are so few of us left that our global impact ceases to be significant, as has been the case for most of human history and will probably be the case for most of the future. Unfortunately, before we can return to that state lots of people have to die.

Your position depends on a belief that through education and other "improvements" in the human situation, we can convince people to either voluntarily do less damage to the ecosystem or vote for a government which will make those changes compulsory. Both of these things are pipe dreams, and anyone who proposes real policy based on pipe dreams is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[AndySir]

So I'm afraid your argument is a red herring, Biff. Since there is no way that the majority of humans are ever going to change their ways and join that tiny minority who are consuming less out of choice, the only thing that actually matters is the overall number of humans.

Recall that the premise of your thought experiment was that we were to assume all resources were evenly distributed. It may be unrealistic, but it was the question you set and looks like pure hypocrisy to call such idealism as red herring now that it no longer suits you.

[UndercoverElephant]

So I'm afraid your argument is a red herring, Biff. Since there is no way that the majority of humans are ever going to change their ways and join that tiny minority who are consuming less out of choice, the only thing that actually matters is the overall number of humans.

Recall that the premise of your thought experiment was that we were to assume all resources were evenly distributed. It may be unrealistic, but it was the question you set and looks like pure hypocrisy to call such idealism as red herring now that it no longer suits you.

This discussion has strayed quite a long way from my original post. However, it is still not hypocrisy. The point I've just made does not cease to be relevant if the wealth were more evenly distributed. Why not? Because so much of that wealth is currently in the hands of the tiny majority who can't "spend" all of it on consuming stuff, simply because there's only so much one person can consume. If anything, redistributing this "capacity to consume" over a wider chunk of the population would make the problems worse because that currently-unused wealth of the super-rich would then be in the hands of people who would probably actually use it. This has been pointed out very clearly by some of the "occupy wall street" people - the inequalities that currently exist are actually restricting economic growth/activity because money sitting in a fat bank account is dormant.

In other words, spreading out the capacity to consume more equitably makes the ecological damage worse, not better, which is precisely what I was pointing out in the original post.

But go on trying to score points, AndySir. It's incredibly tedious, but do go on.

[AndySir]

I'm not sure that's true. At current wealth levels an equal distribution would leave us all with about $10k GNI. There's no room for Humvee's in there - the humvee market goes. Diets would probably be less meat heavy, or entirely vegetarian - certainly in terms of farming this would increase the carrying capacity. Equal wealth distribution means a slight increase in wealth for the population of Bhutan and a massive drop for us.

I think it's undoubtedly true that economic growth would increase, but it would take quite a while for everyone to get back up to current developed world levels. Who knows what happens in the meantime.

I don't. But, of course, I don't quite have your faith and vision.

[emordnilap]

At current wealth levels an equal distribution would leave us all with about $10k GNI.

Is that true? It sounds a lot. But if it's about right, so be it. What a fascinating world that would be. I could just about live on that, even though I'm in a (ahem) developed nation. It would be tough, sure but at least everyone would be in the same boat.

[AndySir]

At current wealth levels an equal distribution would leave us all with about $10k GNI.

Is that true? It sounds a lot. But if it's about right, so be it. What a fascinating world that would be. I could just about live on that, even though I'm in a (ahem) developed nation. It would be tough, sure but at least everyone would be in the same boat.

That's $10k total. You have to pay for your healthcare, policing and education, etc. out of that.

[emordnilap]

Just as an aside, here's a website about a guaranteed liveable income. I have a feeling RC has some other links too.

[RenewableCandy]

There is a tiny minority at the top who have more wealth than they could possibly ever spend. This is a problem in terms of social justice, but there is a limit to how much ecological damage they can do because there are so few of them.

I've been thinking long and hard about this (as well as doing C-footprint studies for a living...) and I believe that assumption to be incorrect. The extremely-rich do do a lot of damage, by several paths.
1. They really do burn a lot more FF directly in their everyday lives: have a look at the MPG of (for example) a Lear-jet, or one of those yachts.
2. But more to the point, their ownership of disproportionate amounts of land and property has an effect on the rest of us. It raises (or indeed, forms at all) the rent we must pay to use it (or the mortgage we must take out to buy it: same difference). This increases the amount of earnings the rest of us must make, which of course increases the amount of work we must do, simply in order to live somewhere. A similar case applies to other necessary commodities (for example speculation in food staples). That work that the rest of us do, in its turn, results in FF being burned and in various other damage.