Justified Hatred... Please read.

"

vmt80 wrote:

In the meanwhile, I also find it naive to ask for models on overpopulation. Sure, maybe theoretically Earth could provide for gazillion human beings, but we aren't living in a theoretical world. It's well-documented that our current way we have set up production is quickly ruining environment for other species, let alone if people are to copy the same production chain in developing countries. The most serious risk is endangering systemic balance. Such threat is existential to all known life in the universe, no hyperbole attached. This is why the argument is not neutral -there are severe differences of outcomes between scenarios under information uncertainty. See:

I'll respond to this portion to attempt brevity.

Iff the claim for models is naive, then this moves both ways, it would imply naivity on proponents for and against.
And given how the models are utilized and usually butchered in the name of ideology they serve only a function of change not a representation of reality.
(which by all accounts is improbable neither is it realistic given the multitude of variables required)

So i will move on to the next claims.

1) population isn't an ever growing exponential curve, similar to how animals organize based on resources, so do humans.
So i'm not particularly saying people in general will keep increasing, only that they will follow natural pre-conditions for expansion untill that limit is reached.

Saying we are currently at a crucial limit is contrary to what can be observed. That's not the same as saying there is no crucial limit.

2) developing country's are still in formation, this means they aren't at the level of wealth when climate becomes a feasable thought.
(china for example is going heavy on climate right now, which would be an implausible thought a couple of decades ago under starvation conditions and general low wealth)

It's like asking a father/mother with a hungry child to put climate first, people simply don't function like that and that doesn't make them bad it just makes them people with different contextual parameters.

Once the self-interest is fullfilled, then people can move on to other things.

3) Species and mass extinction, i really don't understand this argument.
Extinction has been going on for as long as species have competed with one another, new species arisse and others get removed.

When it boils down to it, i'm picking human over polar bear any day of the week.

Not that i don't like nature or it's creations, i am actually a big fan of all of it, but i also don't have this disney pre-conception of a benevolent nature where lions lick my hand when i approuch them.
Sometimes in my more cynical moments i think people have this notion that winnie the pooh is an accurate representation of a bear after growing up in a big city never actually experiencing nature that hasn't been paved beforehand.

I understand the need for certain species to hold up natural events(think bee's and flowers with farmers) but thinking that people will not react when these conditions are under a lot of stress seems infantile to me.

If we need them, we will sustain and protect them the moment self-interest kicks in.(as evident by todays culture and general shift of attention and subjects)

4) On information and propaganda(different outcomes based on information), a difference should be made between reality and formulated reality.

The later can be questioned, the former however cannot.

When a river dry's up, forcing the farmer to leave that piece of land or spend massive amounts of wealth on water to continue their work this is a reality.

Or when the bee population goes incredibly low to a point where certain fruits aren't generated at sufficient rates etc

The thought that people will not react to these reality's on the ground, opposed to formulated reality's is unrealistic.(since the outcome would be death if sustained long enough)

5) optimisme or pessimisme?

People behave oriented on self-interest and they can undertake massive changes in relative short time-spans.
Once the reality presents itself and its do or die i see no reason to believe people will choose "die".
We will adapt and the world wont be the same as when we "arrived", but this much was true for every generation of humans that came into existence.

Our grandchildren might not be able to see polar bears alive anymore, but thats missing the key point that they would still be alive to experience whatever is new.(hyperbole to serve a point)

I could go into the social aspect of telling people "they are responsible" or that something is "just happening and a reality" as a message for generations to come and the impact on that front, but i fear support deletion and losing the assumed brevity i started out with :p

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : quick glance after posting ensures i definetly didn't attain brevity. Worth the shot i suppose.