Why is it impossible (or at least so difficult) to discuss population control?

[GliderGuider]

Last edited Fri Oct 4, 2013, 05:42 PM - Edit history (3)

As humanity drives ever deeper into fossil fueled overshoot, the question of population growth is returning (albeit tentatively) to the public arena alongside the issue of overconsumption. Population has always been a very fraught topic. The mere mention of the name of Thomas Malthus is enough to raise personal and political blood pressure around the globe.

The paper I reference here was published in last month’s edition of the journal “Environmental Politics”. It’s a clear look at five ways in which the discussion of population questions is marginalized and suppressed in the public sphere. It was published by a professor in the Department of Politics at Birkbeck, University of London, in the UK.

Given the political orientation of the paper, I thought it would be useful to bring it to DU in the hopes that it might stimulate some thoughtful discussion.

Too many bodies? The return and disavowal of the population question (PDF)

Abstract:

During the 1960s and early 1970s population growth was regarded as an urgent environmental issue. Since then the topic has fallen into abeyance. Despite continuing demographic expansion and anxieties about a range of socio-ecological problems – from the stresses of high-density urban living to climate change, water, energy and food insecurity and loss of biodiversity – there is currently scant consideration of the benefits of population stabilisation or decline. Indeed, the problematisation of population numbers is widely disavowed or regarded with profound suspicion.

Why have we become so reluctant to ask whether we are too many or to countenance policies that might discourage further growth? I identify five discourses – population-shaming, population-scepticism, population-declinism, population-decomposing and population-fatalism – that foreclose public debate and subject them to critical analysis. I end by eliciting signs of a hesitant revival of the population question alongside the enduring potency of silencing discourses.

Professor Coole defines the five suppressive modes of discussion this way (in my words, not hers):

1. population-shaming: This view rejects the notion that there is an objective demographic growth problem, suggesting instead that such concerns are a smokescreen for racist ulterior motives. It seeks to recast population control arguments as immoral arguments that further eugenic aims, and thereby humiliate their proponents into silence.
   
   
2. population-scepticism: This argument is based on the Demographic Transition theory, and claims that there is no longer a population problem since fertility is in broad decline; In addition, its adherents tend to claim that population growth isn’t detrimental in any case. They argue that Malthusianism is anachronistic, and that it underestimates the modern capacity for sustained growth. The claim is that no action is necessary, whether pro- or anti-natalist.
   
   
3. population-declinism: This position accepts that we face an end-stage DTT transition to ageing populations, and is fearful of the prospects of being out-competed politically and economically by younger, more vibrant countries. Proponents of this argument tend to encourage pro-growth population policies.
   
   
4. population-decomposing: This school of thought tends to reduce larger population questions to their constituent parts. Instead of seeing a national- or global-scale population problem, it sees a large number of individual or household questions. It re-frames the issue as one of reproductive choice or welfare entitlement instead of a “numbers game”.
   
   
5. population-fatalism: In this view, population growth is inevitable, and the preferred approach is one of identifying challenges and abatement costs.

In her conclusion Professor Coole says this:

While they are mutually-supporting in their silencing effects, two of these discourses seem especially powerful: population shaming, because it renders the population question so morally treacherous, and population-scepticism, because of its complacency and its congeniality for hegemonic pro-growth ideologies.

I have not attempted to refute such arguments but I have suggested that they are not good enough reasons for suppressing discussion about population numbers and the merits of fewer people, especially as renewed public concerns emerge over resource insecurity, biodiversity, climate change and high-density urban living.

Personally, I tend strongly towards the fatalistic view, with the caveat that the problem will sort itself out naturally in due course regardless of what we do. My assumption is that we are now at the limits to growth in a number of social and ecological areas, have already passed significant physical thresholds, and may have triggered tipping points in the climate and the oceans. Because of that I don't think we have the time, the requisite number of generations that would be needed to turn the population ship around in a humane fashion, even if the discussion could be conducted. The fact that there is no political appetite for the conversation anywhere in the world only increases my sense of fatalism.

I've run into all of the five arguments Dr. Coole identifies, even here on DU. The inability of a progressive constituency such as this to entertain much serious discussion on the topic indicates just how deep the pro-natalist sentiment runs. It seems to me that our genetic predisposition towards growth in general is what keeps us even from talking about the issues, let alone doing anything about them.

(On edit: OK, y'all win - I dialed back the impossibility in the title a bit )

[enlightenment]

1. Very interesting

I've also seen all these arguments - time and time again (I expect to see them resurface in this thread, unless it is lost in the maelstrom of political news).

I tend to agree with you on the fatalist viewpoint - also with the belief that it will sort itself out - and we're not going to like the way that happens.

[Stargazer09]

3. I see that happening eventually

There will be a pandemic, either as a result of overcrowding or due to climate change. It won't be pretty.

[Stargazer09]

2. It's not "pro-natalist sentiment"

It's simply not anyone else's right to tell people how many children they are allowed to have.

We all know what has happened in countries that try to limit birth rates.

If you want to change the rate of population growth, you need to change traditional gender roles and give every single girl on this planet the best education possible. Let women work in any field in which they are qualified to work, and pay them the same salaries you pay men for the same job.

You also need to severely punish rapists.

Access to contraception and safe abortions are obvious.

The bottom line, though, is that governments and society do not get to make the decisions about childbearing. That must remain an individual's choice.

[GliderGuider]

5. How do you distinguish between a libertarian sentiment and a universal human right in this case?

I assume you wouldn't want to be painted as a libertarian either, but on this issue I find it hard to tell the difference between the two positions.

[Stargazer09]

6. A libertarian?

Just because I don't agree that someone should tell me how many children I should have?

You completely lost me.

[GliderGuider]

7. The definition of libertarianism includes the primacy of individual liberty

Including the inalienable right to make personal decisions like whether or not to have a child. I'm not calling you a libertarian, just saying that this sort of "right" falls within that philosophical camp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Does a group have any moral standing in that individual choice if it decides that population growth presents an existential threat to the group?

[FBaggins]

14. Liberalism puts it pretty high up on the scale too. n/t

[GliderGuider]

15. Classical or neo-liberalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property, and belief in laissez-faire economic policy. Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, such as selected ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, the contradictory theories of natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress. Classical liberals were more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government and, adopting Thomas Hobbes's theory of government, they believed government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from one another.

[FBaggins]

16. Both.

Neoliberalism is more of an economic philosophy (where yes, individual desires are often subject to the greater good), but doesn't extend to personal liberties like what a woman elects to do with her own body. We might, for instance, remove an economic benefit of having children if we're not looking to encourage larger families... but we wouldn't set a limit on family size or require people on welfare to be sterilized in order to keep their benefits (etc).

[GliderGuider]

17. Yes, you're correct and I agree.

I tend not to give much weight to moral arguments these days, I prefer instead to look at what people actually do. The defense of choice in childbearing is deeply ingrained in human behaviour - as is the use of various means of economic and social persuasion to shift the statistical probability of a particular choice one way or the other, without intervening directly. Other cultures, of course, place different weights on the individual vs. collective rights, and the degree of direct interference that's tolerable can vary quite a lot.

That last point raises an interesting question. If it was shown to be more effective to intervene in the individual decision directly, what about a social engineering (aka advertising and media) campaign to raise the priority of the group rights, to make direct intervention more palatable? I doubt it would work, but would that be a moral approach?

[The2ndWheel]

18. But we will do that to other domesticated animals

[FBaggins]

20. That's correct.

With the exception of animals that we live with that many treat as family members, even most liberals reject the notion of individual liberties for animals (beyond protection from gross abuse).

[GliderGuider]

21. What about Deep Ecologists?

A case is easily made under the principles of DE for non-interference in the reproductive lives of animals. As well, of course for freeing them from all constraints to their liberty.

[enlightenment]

9. Though he is much reviled

on DU, I give you Edmund Burke - who in speaking of the French Revolution made a comment that can and should be widely applied:

Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15700/15700-h/15700-h.htm#MEMBER_OF_THE_NATIONAL_ASSEMBLY

(The entire very long letter is a brilliant essay, by the way - whether you agree with the sentiment contained therein or not. Worth reading.)

I italicized the part of the quote I believe is most true. If we cannot control ourselves, then society and, by extension, the governments those societies create, must apply the control.

It is not an individual choice - it affects everyone.

[GliderGuider]

19. Why is Burke reviled hereabouts?

He's supposedly a classical liberal, after all. Or is that a problem?

I've printed off his letter, and will read. Thanks.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. He's more commonly called a founder of conservatism

The outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 gave Burke his greatest target. He expressed his hostility in 'Reflections on the Revolution in France' (1790). The book provoked a huge response, including Thomas Paine's 'The Rights of Man'. Burke emphasised the dangers of mob rule, fearing that the Revolution's fervour was destroying French society. He appealed to the British virtues of continuity, tradition, rank and property and opposed the Revolution to the end of his life.

Burke retired from parliament in 1794. His last years were clouded by the death of his only son, but he continued to write and defend himself from his critics. His arguments for long-lived constitutional conventions, political parties, and the independence of an MP once elected still carry weight. He is justly regarded as one of the founders of the British Conservative tradition. He died on 9 July 1797.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/burke_edmund.shtml

[enlightenment]

34. Classical conservatism

muriel - which these days look damned liberal.

I like his non-political works best - A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful is a fabulous read.

[GliderGuider]

32. That is an astonishing and eerie letter!

I haven't read anything by Burke before. I'm still in its early paragraphs, but I'm dumbfounded by the congruence between what Burke saw happening in France in 1791 and what many of us see happening in America today. Burke could just as easily have been writing to a Republican apologist in Congress.

Proceeding, therefore, as we are obliged to proceed,—that is, upon an hypothesis that we address rational men,—can false political principles be more effectually exposed than by demonstrating that they lead to consequences directly inconsistent with and subversive of the arrangements grounded upon them? If this kind of demonstration is not permitted, the process of reasoning called deductio ad absurdum, which even the severity of geometry does not reject, could not be employed at all in legislative discussions. One of our strongest weapons against folly acting with authority would be lost.

The indulgence of a sort of undefined hope, an obscure confidence, that some lurking remains of virtue, some degree of shame, might exist in the breasts of the oppressors of France, has been among the causes which have helped to bring on the common ruin of king and people. There is no safety for honest men, but by believing all possible evil of evil men, and by acting with promptitude, decision, and steadiness on that belief. I well remember, at every epocha of this wonderful history, in every scene of this tragic business, that, when your sophistic usurpers were laying down mischievous principles, and even applying them in direct resolutions, it was the fashion to say that they never intended to execute those declarations in their rigor. This made men careless in their opposition, and remiss in early precaution. By holding out this fallacious hope, the impostors deluded sometimes one description of men, and sometimes another, so that no means of resistance were provided against them, when they came to execute in cruelty what they had planned in fraud.

I find that some persons entertain other hopes, which I confess appear more specious than those by which at first so many were deluded and disarmed. They flatter themselves that the extreme misery brought upon the people by their folly will at last open the eyes of the multitude, if not of their leaders. Much the contrary, I fear. As to the leaders in this system of imposture,—you know that cheats and deceivers never can repent. The fraudulent have no resource but in fraud. They have no other goods in their magazine. They have no virtue or wisdom in their minds, to which, in a disappointment concerning the profitable effects of fraud and cunning, they can retreat. The wearing out of an old serves only to put them upon the invention of a new delusion. Unluckily, too, the credulity of dupes is as inexhaustible as the invention of knaves. They never give people possession; but they always keep them in hope.

Your state doctors do not so much as pretend that any good whatsoever has hitherto been derived from their operations, or that the public has prospered in any one instance under their management. The nation is sick, very sick, by their medicines. But the charlatan tells them that what is past cannot be helped;—they have taken the draught, and they must wait its operation with patience;—that the first effects, indeed, are unpleasant, but that the very sickness is a proof that the dose is of no sluggish operation;—that sickness is inevitable in all constitutional revolutions;—that the body must pass through pain to ease;—that the prescriber is not an empiric who proceeds by vulgar experience, but one who grounds his practice[1] on the sure rules of art, which cannot possibly fail. You have read, Sir, the last manifesto, or mountebank's bill, of the National Assembly. You see their presumption in their promises is not lessened by all their failures in the performance. Compare this last address of the Assembly and the present state of your affairs with the early engagements of that body, engagements which, not content with declaring, they solemnly deposed upon oath,—swearing lustily, that, if they were supported, they would make their country glorious and happy; and then judge whether those who can write such things, or those who can bear to read them, are of themselves to be brought to any reasonable course of thought or action.

From the forced repentance of invalid mutineers and disbanded thieves you can hope for no resource. Government itself, which ought to constrain the more bold and dexterous of these robbers, is their accomplice. Its arms, its treasures, its all are in their hands. Judicature, which above all things should awe them, is their creature and their instrument. Nothing seems to me to render your internal situation more desperate than this one circumstance of the state of your judicature. ... To the horror and stupefaction of all the honest part of this nation, and indeed of all nations who are spectators, we have seen, on the credit of those very practices and principles, and to carry them further into effect, these very men placed on the sacred seat of justice in the capital city of your late kingdom. We see that in future you are to be destroyed with more form and regularity. This is not peace: it is only the introduction of a sort of discipline in their hostility. Their tyranny is complete in their justice; and their lanterne is not half so dreadful as their court.

Unbelievable. I suspect that while America may have elected a new king, the "Jacobins of the burning Bush" still grip the reins of power. How remarkable that a two hundred and twnty-two year old letter could be so prescient. There truly is nothing new under the sun when human nature turns to politics.

[enlightenment]

33. Burke was a fascinating character

much more complex (I think) than many today give him credit for. He tends to get lumped with the "right" these days, which is a shame because a lot of what he said isn't espousing a conservative bent at all.

He wasn't perfect - there are no perfect people and certainly no perfect politicians - but he was interesting and intelligent and passionate about what he believed in.

[happyslug]

36. Burke believed in change when needed, but not change for change sake.

In many ways, Obama is a Burkean Conservative, he is for change that is needed, but as a whole will keep things as they are. The GOP is something that did not really exist in the 1790s, but came about AFTER the end of the Napoleonic wars, a Reactionary. A Reactionary is someone who wants to keep the changes made in a Revolution that benefits him, but as to other things go back to pre-revolutionary days. A Reactionary is someone who is also NOT willing to go back to the way they were, for that means changing the things that benefited him.

In the early 1800s, reactionaries wanted to keep the centralized state that the French Revolution had created but go back to pre-revolutionary France when in came to relation between workers and employers (Without the various checks Employers had on them from local government that the revolution abolished and the reduced position of the Church within the State, another institution weakened by the Revolution and its push for a Centralized state). In effect Reactionaries want to return to a time period that never was. That was a Position Burke would have rejected had he lived passed 1797 for, again it meant change for change sake as oppose to what was needed.

Now, to change many of the problems France had, radical change was required. Thus Burke actually supported the French Revolution (As he had supported the earlier American Revolution) till these radical reforms were adopted. As an Englishmen it does not appear he understood that the French Monarchy and its absolute Rule was based on having the Central Government abolished and the King given absolute power by the various provinces of France. Furthermore he did not appear to have understood that to get rid of the Absolute rule of the Monarch (something he did support) required that the legal basis for that rule (local government giving the Monarch the right to rule absolutely) had to be abolished. This later change, the replacement of local Government with the modern days "Departments" of France is what he opposed most. Burke saw the change as unneeded, for he assumed the Absolute rule of the KIngs of France was based on Centralized Government NOT a grant of power from each of the provinces of France to the King of France.

Even today it is hard to understand how the Monarchy of France worked. It would be as if the Congress of the US and the Supreme Court were abolished and each state then gave the President absolute power to rule the US as a whole. The Constitution could still exists but since no Congress would be called and no one appointed to the Supreme Court, those institution could do nothing. The Absolute rule included the right to name his own successor, thus the King always existed.

The down side of this is each provence of France raised its own taxes, and depending on who controlled that provence determined how much the King received. This produced a lack of funds (Caused not only by the American Revolution and the Desire of France to have a Large Fleet but also the Great Famine of 1787). Do to the drop in income do to the Famine (and the need for increase relief do to the Famine) Louis XVI finally accepted the fact he needed to raise taxes on a NATIONAL LEVEL an thus called in the Estate General, which later became the General Assembly when the Priests voted to join the commoners in one Assembly and the Nobility had to join or be left out. That change was accepted by Burke, for it was clearly needed. The problem was it was clear the biggest impediment to centralizing taxing was the money collected by the provinces and given directly to the King. The only way to make sure the taxes when to the Government as a whole NOT to the King was to Abolish the local provinces and replace them with Departments of the Centralized Government.

This is where Burke rejected the French Revolution. He saw no need to get rid of the Provinces, or their rights. The problem the rights of those Provinces was tied in with the power of the King, something that had NEVER been the case in England (England had always used tariffs as its main source of Revenue, till they were replaced by Income Taxes do to the need for more cash during the Napoleonic Wars). Worse by the 1790s England was a major Coal exporter, and the tax on that export help fund the English Central government. Another source of Revenue France did not have do to its lack of true Centralized Government.

Once you understand that Burke did not seems to have fully understood why the French Revolution went the way it did, you understand his opposition to it. That same opposition was why Burke opposed many of the proposals to change the laws in England that reflected changes adopted by the French. In England his opposition (and support for some changes) to changes reflect his policy of only making changes that are needed. Thus most of what France had done was NOT needed in England and Burke opposed them. In those opposition he appears to be more and more correct as France ended up in the Directory (one of the most corrupt government any country had ever had) and finally a return to the Monarchy in the form of Napoleon as Emperor (Through that was AFTER Burke was dead).

Napoleon's dictatorship was stricter then the Kings had been, for Napoleon had a Centralized Government behind him, not a bunch of Provinces providing him money (Napoleon ended up carrying out the land reform set forth in the French Revolution but never carried out till Napoleon became Emperor, the Land reform was one of the few changes the French Revolution supported that Burke also supported, but it was one of the changes the Revolution passed, put on the books and then promptly forgot about, which Burke pointed out as one of the Revolutions great Failings, remember Burke died when the Directory ruled France, the Terror was long past and Napoleon was in the future).

Just a comment on Burke and the French Revolution and why he opposed it and supported it at the same time.

[FBaggins]

4. Simple... because it isn't our business.

It isn't our your place to tell a man and woman whether or not they can/should have that baby girl any more than it's their place to point out that you use more resources that she does... so they would prefer to trade you for the kid.

You can label it "population shaming"... but the malthusian crying for a smaller population rarely has herself in mind.

The mere mention of the name of Thomas Malthus is enough to raise personal and political blood pressure around the globe

Really more of a giggle than blood pressure at this point. Malthusians have been wrong each and every time they've ever tried to convert their generalized "we can't grow like this forever... there have to be limits" into actual predictions re: what those limits would be. For all I know, they'll whip the fusion genie a decade from now and the carrying capacity for the planet will be ten times the number who live here now.

My assumption is that we are now at the limits to growth

This isn't uncommon. The malthusian curve almost always shows a peak now or in the immediate future... until the future arrives and an excuse for why the new curve is the correct one is created.

Some day it will come true. Growth can't be infinite. But that doesn't mean that any specific prediction based on that will be accurate... or that this time the impending doom is credible. That makes it incredibly difficult to convince politicians looking to the next election to instead focus on two generations down the road.

[GliderGuider]

8. These are precisely the arguments that pushed me into the fatalist camp.

And on most collective issues, not just population.

Que sera, sera.

[phantom power]

10. well, as you say, we'll either sort it out on our terms, or

nature will sort it out for us on its terms, which are red in tooth and claw.

[GliderGuider]

12. Bit of a "Hobson's choice", isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson's_choice

We can't even take the choice we seem to be offered...

[The2ndWheel]

11. It's probably the core issue

How did we get here? Did we have more people, thus requiring more material growth? Or did our material growth allow us to have more people? Are they both acting in concert with each other?

Population control is something we do with cats and dogs, or domesticated cows and pigs, etc. Those cats, dogs, cows, and pigs have their population controlled by an other, not themselves.

How does modern humanity attempt to have fewer children? Increase resource use for those already here. Like you've said many times, we knock down limits, be it predators, disease, or just generally trying to move death further into the future. We don't just allow limits to limit us, because we don't have to.

Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot do? Is that not the question that defines the human project? If everyone is asking that same question, through whatever particular lens they have, how will, or can, discussion take place? The constructive side of that question is legal, or encouraged. The destructive side of that question, the inevitable counterbalance that needs to exist, is illegal, or discouraged.

I guess if zebras could construct a system where lions could no longer kill any of them, they would. If lions could develop a way to harvest zebras with as little work as possible, they would. Humans have found a way to both insulate, and dominate. There is almost no balance but ourselves, and who is anyone to tell anyone else what they can do?

[GliderGuider]

13. Good assessment.

The chicken-and-egg issue is resolved by recognizing it as a positive feedback loop. The drivers of the loop are the human brain and fossil fuel, making it a particularly toxic situation.

[kristopher]

22. It isn't impossible to discuss population control

You shouldn't confuse categorical rejection of approaches based on eugenics and and other dictatorial policies with an unwillingness to engage in discussion on the topic - which exists in vast quantities.

That is something that stargazer has already pointed out to you but clearly you desire that everyone accept your view that only easily envisioned policies can work - no matter all evidence to the contrary that those proscriptive solutions have zero chance of long term success.

[GliderGuider]

23. Hmmm. My experience in discussing this is very different.

I would invite you to read a page or two of the comments on John Feeney's 2008 article in the Guardian, Return of the Population Timebomb. All the categories in Coole's taxonomy are there, laid out in blinding clarity. It's as obvious as day to me that nobody wants to talk about population reduction or human overshoot. What we can talk about is things like educating women, demographic transition by making all the poor of the world middle-class new agricultural paradigms to squeeze more food out of the same tired land area, putting up windmills and solar panels etc. - all of which are essentially euphemisms for BAU.

My position is emphatically not that "only easily envisioned policies can work". It's far more radical than that. I don't think that ANY policies can work. Especially if by "work" we mean "begin the shift towards a human world that will be sustainable over the next thousand years". I have adopted that position because I've concluded that:

• People don't want to change to lower levels of material comfort and population;
  
• Political and economic structures world-wide stand in the way of promoting such a shift;
  
• Human behavior isn't sustainable in the presence of large stocks of resources, especially energy - we insist on growth if possible;
  
• We have already ruined the physical world, it's now on a non-recoverable downward path;
  
• We are running out of resources;
  
• We have run out of time - we don't have the generations left to play with.

Needless to say (or perhaps it does need saying), I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

So, I'm in an interesting position. I have nothing whatsoever to advocate, beyond "Do anything you think might be helpful, and we'll see what happens." That sounds a lot like advocating BAU, but I think that the world has its own dynamic, that natural, non-human forces play a far stronger role than human agency in the current context.

So why do I bring up topics like this, especially on a progressive political board, if I'm this fatalistic? Because I still leave space for miracles, and I think that chance favours the prepared mind. And an essential part of being prepared is to look the truth in the face from time to time. When I run across things like this paper that I think illuminate some aspect of the uncomfortable truth, I'm interested in how people respond to it.

[kristopher]

25. You confirm my point - which explains why your experience is "very different"

You wrote, "It's as obvious as day to me that nobody wants to talk about population reduction or human overshoot. What we can talk about is things like educating women, demographic transition by making all the poor of the world middle-class new agricultural paradigms to squeeze more food out of the same tired land area, putting up windmills and solar panels etc. - all of which are essentially euphemisms for BAU."

Your framing is simply bizarre. Business As Usual (BAU) is nothing like you are portraying it to be. What BAU actually looks like is the balance of pressures that dominated throughout 99,800 years of modern human cultures. Cultural and technological change in the past 100 or so years are certainly NOT BAU. Particularly important are improvements in food production, the proliferation of education, gradual eradication of poverty, and improvements in medical care (with an emphasis on family planning as a workable option).

When you pretend the actual discussion doesn't exist; that doesn't lessen the validity of the discussion. It does show you as a person on the fringe whose writings are better suited to the Conspiracy Theory forum than here.

As for your propensity for throwing out a bunch of names as if that somehow means something - it doesn't. I've followed you down that rabbit hole before and what I found is that you cherry pick sound bites that you see as confirmation of the message you want to spread. That those sound bites are not even close to being in line with the position of the author is irrelevant and elicit nothing more than your usual retreat into appeals to truthiness.

[GliderGuider]

26. That's a definition of BAU that I haven't heard before.

And it's nothing like what I find on teh Gewgle either. This Wiki definition is closer to the general colloquial meaning I use:

Business as usual (policy)

Business as usual was a policy followed by the British government, under Prime Minister H.H. Asquith, during the early years of the First World War. Its fundamental belief was that in order to maintain a stable and functioning country, it was necessary to continue society in the same manner as before the war; in other words, that civilians should think of the war as "business as usual".

Other definitions include:

• A situation that has returned to its usual state again after an unpleasant or surprising event;
  
• Doing everything in the ordinary way;
  
• The normal execution of standard functional operations within an organisation, particularly in contrast to a project or program which would introduce change;

There's nothing in there about the Paleolithic or Neolithic ways of doing things that I can see. BAU refers to things happening the way people are used to. Though they would be considered BAU in their day, Paleolithic population control techniques (for example) would hardly be considered BAU today. In fact, some of them would get you thrown in jail in very short order.

Are you sure you speak idiomatic English? Or were you just trying to find something to dispute?

[kristopher]

27. You are kidding, right?

If that's the limit of your ability to engage in critical thinking, you are in bigger trouble than you know.

[GliderGuider]

28. Pretty much kidding, right.

It might do you good to relax a bit more, my old friend. Not everything on the internet is life and death serious, right?

[XemaSab]

24. People are fine when discussing population control in the "darker" corners of the world

Talk about Americans not breeding and people get uppity.

[Nihil]

30. Not "impossible" ...

... just largely a waste of time as any such discussion is going to be swamped
with responses of the above type that "foreclose public debate".

Even this polite attempt was met with the usual bullshit about "rights"
and other such smoke-screens.



Thanks for the link - have downloaded the paper for later.

Personally, I think that Nature will sort it all out before Man will bite the bullet
on this (and most of the other issues that arise from the majority whose faith
in infinite growth blinds them to the reality of life on a finite planet).

[CRH]

31. Im not sure it is impossible, but the discussion of population is certainly impeded by, ...

an over developed Human Ego.

The same ego that allows humans to assume they are a superior life form to all else on the planet, not just a small part of a greater whole, forever dependent on the integrity of all that contributes to life within the earth system.

If one peels back the layers to expose the evolution of social science, religion, politics, and other concepts used to explain and determine our existence, the ego interrelates with instinct to use, manipulate and control all that is in front of us. The ego elevates the human specie as special, and then creates a special set of perceived rules or boundaries not extended to other life forms.

Therefore, humans can determine if it is important or not that certain species can be forced into extinction by human activity. Humans can decide that the population of insects can be controlled to benefit a particular harvest, the herd of farm animals can be thinned when the corn fails, the water can be fouled when energy is needed, the atmosphere can be engineered after altered. The ego of supposed superiority, can determined what is expendable and for whose agenda, and for whatever motive.

But the ego seems to fall short of understanding the concept and consequence of the (human) petri dish, and its impact on the supporting biosphere, an the extent to which it limits the human specie while confined in a finite environment. It is an arrogance that will certainly test the limits of growth to the threshold of extinction, or beyond.

It is the ego that can maintain the dream/hope/myth, that human ingenuity and invention, can transcend whatever physical or metaphysical limitations the future might impose.

It is my humble opinion, it is the human ego that will force the next great extinction, and the specie's very own demise.

[stuntcat]

35. a virus that's about to kill it's only host, and so itself, will keep reproducing no matter what

The comment above this is exactly right^

And religion is the natural trait of a self-aware, self-worshipping species like ours, helping us to keep making more, because Heaven is somewhere else. I feel sorry for my toddler neighbors but they're Christians, so no matter how this century sucks they'll still have somewhere better to go when they leave the sad filthy Earth.

I've been vehemently child-free for many years and yes it is almost impossible to mention this to any other human, except ones I've found online. I give our species credit for music and art and science, but as much as I love music I know it's just my species' conditioning. If an alien came to our planet they'd see the things that are so beautiful to us like a horror movie.
I've seen too much from people to have any hope. They're all so hateful and rough, and getting meaner.

scuse me, it's late..

[happyslug]

37. The problem is the business community, as it always has been.

People tend to forget the Main reason for immigration is encouraged is to push down labor costs. When immigrations was restricted (1774-1820 do to the American Revolution and later the Wars of the French Revolution, and again in 1912-1919 do to the wars leading up to WWI and WWI itself) immigration into the US came almost to a stand still and wages went up. Employers hated this and the first chance they had, they did all they could to reduce the cost of labor (Thus the massive immigration of the Irish during the Irish Famine, during a period of severe anti-Catholicism in the US, and the massive efforts to reduce wages 1919-1921 which ended up in the Steel Strike of 1919 and the West Virginia Coal War of 1921).

To keep the working class happy (I would say Labor, but the word Labor implies unionization and unions were weak in the 1920s) immigration restrictions were introduced in 1924. In response the new big employer of the 1920s, the Auto makers, imported people from the South, both black and white (this followed the hiring of African Americans during the various coal strikes of the 1910s and the 1920s). The reason for the recruitment, cheap labor. i.e. reduce their cost of hiring workers. When the last immigration reform was passed, again the push was to reduce labor costs i.e. import workers who would work for less then native born Americans. When people complained of this, just call those people "Racists" even if African Americans or Mexican Americans for opposing such immigration for most migrants today are not Europeans.

I bring this up, for when it comes to over population, industry hates the whole concept of population reduction for it means the numbers of workers will decline and the Law of Supply and Demand kick in (i.e. less workers, more pay for each worker). That is the underlying concept behind any talk of population control, a desire for cheap workers and population control will reduce the number of workers and thus increase the pay of those that find work.

In the US today, the East and West Coast have negative native population growth i.e. the population is increasing in both areas, but NOT do to births but do to immigration from the South and the Mid-West (the areas between the Appalachians and Rocky Mountains) AND overseas (which by the American definition of the word "Overseas" includes Mexico, but most Hispanic immigrants are from Central America and Southern Mexico NOT Mexico North of Mexico City). The American Business Communities are worried about this, for the rate of births in those areas are dropping and is expected to hit negative numbers within the next 20 years, thus where will they get cheap workers from to undercut American workers wages).

That is the concern of the Business community NOT anything else and they want a source of cheap workers and they do not care the price anyone else has to pay (including the destruction of the planet).

[The2ndWheel]

38. I'm not sure you can single out the business community

Everyone wants more for less.