Discussion:
Growth of human population
(too old to reply)
Dave Smith
2014-10-28 09:35:40 UTC
Permalink
A while ago, we debated the issue of rapid human population growth, so the study discussed here may be of interest:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/humanitys-inexorable-population-growth-is-so-rapid-that-even-global-catastrophe-wouldnt-stop-it-9821601.html
Lance
2014-10-28 22:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Can such a large number of people be fed?
Abhidevananda
2014-10-29 00:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lance
Can such a large number of people be fed?
The answer to that question depends largely on political, social,
economic, and legal factors. Clearly, under capitalism, with its legal
dogma regarding private property, economic dogma regarding
distribution of wealth based on an "invisible hand", social dogma
regarding upper and lower classes based on income and education, and
political dogma regarding democracy - in other words, what we have now
- the answer is No. Even our current global population cannot be fed
under capitalism. Nor can many, many species of fauna and flora be
fed. However, I don't see any reason why human population size would
be an insurmountable obstacle for society - or why so many species of
fauna and flora should die out - under PROUT.

http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/20-of-worlds-plant-species-threatened-with-extinction-yes-human-activity-is-main-cause.html
Dave Smith
2014-10-29 12:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lance
Can such a large number of people be fed?
It's not just a question of having enough to eat - people need a beneficial and sustainable ecological niche.

Dave
Abhidevananda
2014-10-29 17:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Smith
Post by Lance
Can such a large number of people be fed?
It's not just a question of having enough to eat - people need a
beneficial and sustainable ecological niche.
Here we find yet another capitalist dogma. Yes, people - and indeed
every living creature - requires a congenial (beneficial) environment
(ecological niche). But do people need a "sustainable" environment?
Obviously not. For better or worse, the vast majority of people never
even think about what type of environment they are passing on to their
children and their children's children. If there is no air to breathe
today, people feel need. If there may not be air to breathe twenty
years from now, people might feel a slight twinge of fear, but they
won't feel need.

Let's say that 100 years from now - all things being equal (which is,
of course, never the case) - there will not be enough food for the
projected population at that time. Would the human race commit
collective suicide for that reason? Would the human race become
extinct because of a hypothetical future condition?

The simple fact is that sustainability is largely a fiction...
especially nowadays when much of what is consumed comes with planned
or inevitable rapid obsolescence. It's comforting to know that when a
product one relies on is no longer available, a replacement product -
possibly improved - will be available in its stead. But the transition
often requires a more expanded vision. For example, today we mostly
conceive of the surface of planet Earth as humanity's ecological
niche. Tomorrow, we may expand our vision and our lifestyle to include
the floor of the oceans and the whole of Earth's atmosphere in our
ecological niche. And soon thereafter, we may embrace the solar system
or even the cosmos as our ecological niche.
Lance
2014-10-30 10:14:13 UTC
Permalink
"The simple fact is that sustainability is largely a fiction...
especially nowadays when much of what is consumed comes with planned
or inevitable rapid obsolescence."

I think history, human history, has several examples of societies that have collapsed because they have outrun their resources. Those collapses must have been accompanied by massive death rates. Of course these collapses have been for only a part of humanity, some civilisation that had outgrown its space, water resources, technology, and the like. What may be different in the future is that the collapse may affect all of humanity. Further we now have societies that are massively and powerfully armed, many with nuclear weapons. So we can expect any outrunning of resources that affects major powers to be accompanied by war. Of course if it is just Africa that outruns its resources it will be left to starve. But if India or China or the USA outruns their resources we can expect war. And enormous numbers of refugees and barriers being put up to keep them out, and the like. Gee, seems to me we are already seeing some of these things...
Abhidevananda
2014-10-30 11:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lance
"The simple fact is that sustainability is largely a fiction...
especially nowadays when much of what is consumed comes with
planned or inevitable rapid obsolescence."
I think history, human history, has several examples of societies
that have collapsed because they have outrun their resources. Those
collapses must have been accompanied by massive death rates. Of
course these collapses have been for only a part of humanity, some
civilisation that had outgrown its space, water resources,
technology, and the like. What may be different in the future is
that the collapse may affect all of humanity. Further we now have
societies that are massively and powerfully armed, many with
nuclear weapons. So we can expect any outrunning of resources that
affects major powers to be accompanied by war. Of course if it is
just Africa that outruns its resources it will be left to starve.
But if India or China or the USA outruns their resources we can
expect war. And enormous numbers of refugees and barriers being put
up to keep them out, and the like. Gee, seems to me we are already
seeing some of these things...
Lance, that is exactly my point... only you may not be carrying your
reasoning the few additional steps that I take. Sustainability is a
myth. Scientists have yet to invent a perpetual motion machine.
Capitalists promote the fairy tale of sustainability and use it as an
excuse to do nothing, next to nothing, or the wrong thing.

Lance, you envision the population of an entire continent - "just
Africa" - being "left to starve". And you also envision nuclear war
imposed by ecologically imperiled "major powers". Surely, this tells
you that nationalism and internationalism - bolstered by the political
democracy favored by capitalists - must come to an end, that
universalism is urgently required. Only a world government can prevent
the type of man-made catastrophes that you foresee. As a humanist,
surely you must appreciate that.

Yes, burgeoning population is a condition that humanity must adapt to
or perish. But the solution is not to let the people of poorer
countries starve or the people of richer countries conquer neighboring
countries to appropriate resources. The solution is to adopt a more
humane social outlook and a more rational social, economic, and
political system.
Philip
2014-11-02 20:01:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abhidevananda
Post by Lance
"The simple fact is that sustainability is largely a fiction...
especially nowadays when much of what is consumed comes with
planned or inevitable rapid obsolescence."
I think history, human history, has several examples of societies
that have collapsed because they have outrun their resources. Those
collapses must have been accompanied by massive death rates. Of
course these collapses have been for only a part of humanity, some
civilisation that had outgrown its space, water resources,
technology, and the like. What may be different in the future is
that the collapse may affect all of humanity. Further we now have
societies that are massively and powerfully armed, many with
nuclear weapons. So we can expect any outrunning of resources that
affects major powers to be accompanied by war. Of course if it is
just Africa that outruns its resources it will be left to starve.
But if India or China or the USA outruns their resources we can
expect war. And enormous numbers of refugees and barriers being put
up to keep them out, and the like. Gee, seems to me we are already
seeing some of these things...
Lance, that is exactly my point... only you may not be carrying your
reasoning the few additional steps that I take. Sustainability is a
myth. Scientists have yet to invent a perpetual motion machine.
Capitalists promote the fairy tale of sustainability and use it as an
excuse to do nothing, next to nothing, or the wrong thing.
Sustainability means not consuming limited resources faster than they can be
replenished. It has nothing to do with myths, perpetual motion machines or
fairy tales.
Abhidevananda
2014-11-03 09:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip
Post by Abhidevananda
Post by Lance
"The simple fact is that sustainability is largely a fiction...
especially nowadays when much of what is consumed comes with
planned or inevitable rapid obsolescence."
I think history, human history, has several examples of societies
that have collapsed because they have outrun their resources. Those
collapses must have been accompanied by massive death rates. Of
course these collapses have been for only a part of humanity, some
civilisation that had outgrown its space, water resources,
technology, and the like. What may be different in the future is
that the collapse may affect all of humanity. Further we now have
societies that are massively and powerfully armed, many with
nuclear weapons. So we can expect any outrunning of resources that
affects major powers to be accompanied by war. Of course if it is
just Africa that outruns its resources it will be left to starve.
But if India or China or the USA outruns their resources we can
expect war. And enormous numbers of refugees and barriers being put
up to keep them out, and the like. Gee, seems to me we are already
seeing some of these things...
Lance, that is exactly my point... only you may not be carrying your
reasoning the few additional steps that I take. Sustainability is a
myth. Scientists have yet to invent a perpetual motion machine.
Capitalists promote the fairy tale of sustainability and use it as an
excuse to do nothing, next to nothing, or the wrong thing.
Sustainability means not consuming limited resources faster than they can be
replenished. It has nothing to do with myths, perpetual motion machines or
fairy tales.
Philip, your own definition of sustainability merely tends to
substantiate my assertion that it a myth or fairy tale. If
sustainability (as you define it) were actually possible, then human
beings could conceivably live in the same physical body forever. Do
you really believe that there is something like physical immortality?

Let me amplify my position, and let me begin by clarifying some basic
concepts and terminology. In actuality, all resources are limited (no
matter how vast they are). And all resources are interconnected. So
when talking about resources, it is better to speak in terms of
utilization rather than consumption. Consumption is largely a concept
of economics, and it therefore tends to limit our thinking on the
subject. In other words, consumption may not accurately reflect the
possible range of uses and methods of using a resource.

Any type of developmental activity - or even mere survival activity -
is bound to strain multiple resources in multiple ways, both directly
and indirectly. So, the goal of utilization (be it sustainability or
anything else) cannot and does not exist in a vacuum. That goal is
invariably connected with political, social, economic, and legal
factors (as I stated in the very first paragraph of my first reply to
Lance on this thread).

The reason I described sustainability as a myth or fairy tale is that
it is not attainable in any meaningful, long-term sense. In other
words, sustainability is simply not sustainable. The notion of
sustainability goes against the very laws of nature. Nothing and no
one lives forever. Furthermore, the way in which attempts to achieve
sustainability are implemented inevitably depends on political,
social, economic, and legal factors. In other words, behind the
process of sustainability are various unstated assumptions, a hidden
(or perhaps just unclear or obscured) agenda. Prominent among the
unstated assumptions is the sacrosanct belief in Adam Smith's
"invisible hand", nowadays interpreted to mean "market forces" rather
than "Providence", although both are equally and conveniently vague.
(Under capitalism, "invisible hand" and "market forces" are utopic
rationales for greed.)

Sustainability is a cowardly, unworthy goal for human beings. In
theory, it is largely retrogressive and reactionary. In practice, it
tends to be inhumane and ultimately self-defeating (regardless of any
clever marketing slogans or good intentions). In short, from an
ideological perspective, sustainability is a very poor choice, almost
a non-starter. The only reason it has gained traction in the world is
that it currently serves the interests of wealthy capitalists by
exploiting common fears and sentiments among people in the developed
world. The moment that advocates of sustainability start to point out
that the biggest obstacle to sustainability (other than nature itself)
is the unbalanced distribution of wealth - the over-accumulation of
unutilized, under-utilized, or poorly utilized resources by a relative
few - the irrational notion of sustainability will lose favor with
capitalists and quickly be replaced by another popular dogma.
Philip
2014-11-07 02:42:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abhidevananda
Post by Philip
Post by Abhidevananda
Post by Lance
"The simple fact is that sustainability is largely a fiction...
especially nowadays when much of what is consumed comes with
planned or inevitable rapid obsolescence."
I think history, human history, has several examples of societies
that have collapsed because they have outrun their resources. Those
collapses must have been accompanied by massive death rates. Of
course these collapses have been for only a part of humanity, some
civilisation that had outgrown its space, water resources,
technology, and the like. What may be different in the future is
that the collapse may affect all of humanity. Further we now have
societies that are massively and powerfully armed, many with
nuclear weapons. So we can expect any outrunning of resources that
affects major powers to be accompanied by war. Of course if it is
just Africa that outruns its resources it will be left to starve.
But if India or China or the USA outruns their resources we can
expect war. And enormous numbers of refugees and barriers being put
up to keep them out, and the like. Gee, seems to me we are already
seeing some of these things...
Lance, that is exactly my point... only you may not be carrying your
reasoning the few additional steps that I take. Sustainability is a
myth. Scientists have yet to invent a perpetual motion machine.
Capitalists promote the fairy tale of sustainability and use it as an
excuse to do nothing, next to nothing, or the wrong thing.
Sustainability means not consuming limited resources faster than they can be
replenished. It has nothing to do with myths, perpetual motion machines
or
fairy tales.
Philip, your own definition of sustainability merely tends to
substantiate my assertion that it a myth or fairy tale. If
sustainability (as you define it) were actually possible, then human
beings could conceivably live in the same physical body forever. Do
you really believe that there is something like physical immortality?
No. Do you not think that "[sustainability] has nothing to do with myths
... or fairy tales." tends rather more towards contradicting your assertion
than substantiating it?
Post by Abhidevananda
Let me amplify my position, and let me begin by clarifying some basic
concepts and terminology. In actuality, all resources are limited (no
matter how vast they are). And all resources are interconnected. So
when talking about resources, it is better to speak in terms of
utilization rather than consumption. Consumption is largely a concept
of economics, and it therefore tends to limit our thinking on the
subject. In other words, consumption may not accurately reflect the
possible range of uses and methods of using a resource.
I meant "consuming" in the sense of "using up". You haven't said what you
mean by "utilization" but it seems the sort of thing someone like George W
Bush might say instead of "use".
Post by Abhidevananda
Any type of developmental activity - or even mere survival activity -
is bound to strain multiple resources in multiple ways, both directly
and indirectly. So, the goal of utilization (be it sustainability or
anything else) cannot and does not exist in a vacuum. That goal is
invariably connected with political, social, economic, and legal
factors (as I stated in the very first paragraph of my first reply to
Lance on this thread).
The reason I described sustainability as a myth or fairy tale is that
it is not attainable in any meaningful, long-term sense.
How was it possible for farming to be sustained for centuries before the
introduction of artificial fertilizers?
Post by Abhidevananda
In other
words, sustainability is simply not sustainable. The notion of
sustainability goes against the very laws of nature. Nothing and no
one lives forever. Furthermore, the way in which attempts to achieve
sustainability are implemented inevitably depends on political,
social, economic, and legal factors. In other words, behind the
process of sustainability are various unstated assumptions, a hidden
(or perhaps just unclear or obscured) agenda. Prominent among the
unstated assumptions is the sacrosanct belief in Adam Smith's
"invisible hand", nowadays interpreted to mean "market forces" rather
than "Providence", although both are equally and conveniently vague.
(Under capitalism, "invisible hand" and "market forces" are utopic
rationales for greed.)
Sustainability is a cowardly, unworthy goal for human beings. In
theory, it is largely retrogressive and reactionary. In practice, it
tends to be inhumane and ultimately self-defeating (regardless of any
clever marketing slogans or good intentions). In short, from an
ideological perspective, sustainability is a very poor choice, almost
a non-starter. The only reason it has gained traction in the world is
that it currently serves the interests of wealthy capitalists by
exploiting common fears and sentiments among people in the developed
world. The moment that advocates of sustainability start to point out
that the biggest obstacle to sustainability (other than nature itself)
is the unbalanced distribution of wealth - the over-accumulation of
unutilized, under-utilized, or poorly utilized resources by a relative
few - the irrational notion of sustainability will lose favor with
capitalists and quickly be replaced by another popular dogma.
The only person I've come across promoting the idea that sustainability
implies eternal life is you.
Abhidevananda
2014-11-07 05:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip
Post by Abhidevananda
Post by Philip
Post by Abhidevananda
Post by Lance
"The simple fact is that sustainability is largely a fiction...
especially nowadays when much of what is consumed comes with
planned or inevitable rapid obsolescence."
I think history, human history, has several examples of societies
that have collapsed because they have outrun their resources. Those
collapses must have been accompanied by massive death rates. Of
course these collapses have been for only a part of humanity, some
civilisation that had outgrown its space, water resources,
technology, and the like. What may be different in the future is
that the collapse may affect all of humanity. Further we now have
societies that are massively and powerfully armed, many with
nuclear weapons. So we can expect any outrunning of resources that
affects major powers to be accompanied by war. Of course if it is
just Africa that outruns its resources it will be left to starve.
But if India or China or the USA outruns their resources we can
expect war. And enormous numbers of refugees and barriers being put
up to keep them out, and the like. Gee, seems to me we are already
seeing some of these things...
Lance, that is exactly my point... only you may not be carrying your
reasoning the few additional steps that I take. Sustainability is a
myth. Scientists have yet to invent a perpetual motion machine.
Capitalists promote the fairy tale of sustainability and use it as an
excuse to do nothing, next to nothing, or the wrong thing.
Sustainability means not consuming limited resources faster than they can be
replenished. It has nothing to do with myths, perpetual motion machines
or
fairy tales.
Philip, your own definition of sustainability merely tends to
substantiate my assertion that it a myth or fairy tale. If
sustainability (as you define it) were actually possible, then human
beings could conceivably live in the same physical body forever. Do
you really believe that there is something like physical immortality?
No. Do you not think that "[sustainability] has nothing to do with myths
... or fairy tales." tends rather more towards contradicting your assertion
than substantiating it?
Excuse me, I don't see any new question that warrants an answer. We
already know that you dispute what I said.
Post by Philip
Post by Abhidevananda
Let me amplify my position, and let me begin by clarifying some basic
concepts and terminology. In actuality, all resources are limited (no
matter how vast they are). And all resources are interconnected. So
when talking about resources, it is better to speak in terms of
utilization rather than consumption. Consumption is largely a concept
of economics, and it therefore tends to limit our thinking on the
subject. In other words, consumption may not accurately reflect the
possible range of uses and methods of using a resource.
I meant "consuming" in the sense of "using up". You haven't said what you
mean by "utilization" but it seems the sort of thing someone like George W
Bush might say instead of "use".
Actually, I did state - or at least imply - what I mean by
"utilization". Although I did not explicitly say "Utilization means
such and such", I assumed you would get the point or that you might
already understand the difference between "utilization" and "use".

As you would see, at the end of my paragraph to which you reply, I
wrote "In other words, consumption may not accurately reflect the
possible range of _uses and methods of using_ a resource. In that
sentence, "uses and methods of using" is another way of saying
"utilization". The difference between "utilization" and "use" is that
"utilization" comprises both the concept of "use" and the "method of
use". It's a subtle distinction but a significant one. For reference,
see the Usage Note at: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/utilization.
Post by Philip
Post by Abhidevananda
Any type of developmental activity - or even mere survival activity -
is bound to strain multiple resources in multiple ways, both directly
and indirectly. So, the goal of utilization (be it sustainability or
anything else) cannot and does not exist in a vacuum. That goal is
invariably connected with political, social, economic, and legal
factors (as I stated in the very first paragraph of my first reply to
Lance on this thread).
The reason I described sustainability as a myth or fairy tale is that
it is not attainable in any meaningful, long-term sense.
How was it possible for farming to be sustained for centuries before the
introduction of artificial fertilizers?
Farming is a very broad example. Even after introducing fertilizers
and modern techniques of pest control, it is still farming. However,
if you study history, I think you will find that the farming that went
on without fertilizers and without other modern techniques was not
just much less efficient but also much less reliable. The consequence
of that reduced efficiency and reliability was that people - not just
farmers - went hungry. Consider the Great Famine in Ireland, which
took place in the middle of the 19th Century.
Post by Philip
Post by Abhidevananda
In other
words, sustainability is simply not sustainable. The notion of
sustainability goes against the very laws of nature. Nothing and no
one lives forever. Furthermore, the way in which attempts to achieve
sustainability are implemented inevitably depends on political,
social, economic, and legal factors. In other words, behind the
process of sustainability are various unstated assumptions, a hidden
(or perhaps just unclear or obscured) agenda. Prominent among the
unstated assumptions is the sacrosanct belief in Adam Smith's
"invisible hand", nowadays interpreted to mean "market forces" rather
than "Providence", although both are equally and conveniently vague.
(Under capitalism, "invisible hand" and "market forces" are utopic
rationales for greed.)
Sustainability is a cowardly, unworthy goal for human beings. In
theory, it is largely retrogressive and reactionary. In practice, it
tends to be inhumane and ultimately self-defeating (regardless of any
clever marketing slogans or good intentions). In short, from an
ideological perspective, sustainability is a very poor choice, almost
a non-starter. The only reason it has gained traction in the world is
that it currently serves the interests of wealthy capitalists by
exploiting common fears and sentiments among people in the developed
world. The moment that advocates of sustainability start to point out
that the biggest obstacle to sustainability (other than nature itself)
is the unbalanced distribution of wealth - the over-accumulation of
unutilized, under-utilized, or poorly utilized resources by a relative
few - the irrational notion of sustainability will lose favor with
capitalists and quickly be replaced by another popular dogma.
The only person I've come across promoting the idea that sustainability
implies eternal life is you.
"Promoting" may be a bit of an overstatement to describe my analogy.
But that's no big deal. However, to be clear, I was not talking about
"eternal life". I'm pretty sure that in religious circles, you could
find many people who would readily argue that life is sustainable
eternally. For example, a Christian might say that one only needs to
accept Jesus into one's heart for one to live forever (either on earth
or in heaven). Of course, that type of religious dogma relies on a
belief in yet another myth - the myth of a place called heaven.

What I was talking about is something more down to earth. I was
talking about physical immortality. I was suggesting that nowadays -
both because of and despite scientific advancement - relatively few
people seem to believe that physical immortality is attainable. Of
course, there are some who do think like that. See, for example,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortality#Physical_immortality.
Personally, I see no great leap between the belief in sustainable
development - or just sustainability - and the belief in physical
immortality. Both seem equally unlikely to me, equally mythic.
Abhidevananda
2014-11-08 06:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abhidevananda
Post by Philip
How was it possible for farming to be sustained for centuries before the
introduction of artificial fertilizers?
Farming is a very broad example. Even after introducing fertilizers
and modern techniques of pest control, it is still farming. However,
if you study history, I think you will find that the farming that went
on without fertilizers and without other modern techniques was not
just much less efficient but also much less reliable. The consequence
of that reduced efficiency and reliability was that people - not just
farmers - went hungry. Consider the Great Famine in Ireland, which
took place in the middle of the 19th Century.
After doing a bit of research, I need to make a correction here.
Everywhere that I wrote "fertilizers", it should read "modern
fertilizers and modern fertilization techniques". In fact, fertilizers
have been in use for thousands of years. By the middle of the 19th
Century, there were already factories in the UK and other parts of
Europe that produced superphosphate (a mineral-based or artificial
manure).

Though my example of Ireland was intentional - I expected it would hit
closer to home in respect to topics like hunger and imperialism - it
was not the best example. It might have been that in Ireland at the
time of the Great Famine, artificial fertilizers were already in use.
So I should have at least mentioned that even today in much of the
world, agriculture is carried out in a very primitive and inefficient
fashion. That leads to needless local food shortages. In other words,
in the past and up to the present day, there have always been food
shortages in one place or another in this world. However, it is only
in modern times that we can say with some certainty that there is
absolutely no good reason for any human being on this planet to face
death by starvation.

Hence, I view most of the ballyhoo about population growth as a red
herring. Instead of focusing on the fear that human population is
expanding at a rapid rate, we should focus on the fact that for the
first time in human history we can eradicate starvation. For the first
time in human history, we can and therefore we should free humanity
from the affliction of hunger.
Philip
2014-11-11 02:58:30 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Abhidevananda
Post by Philip
Post by Abhidevananda
The reason I described sustainability as a myth or fairy tale is that
it is not attainable in any meaningful, long-term sense.
How was it possible for farming to be sustained for centuries before the
introduction of artificial fertilizers?
Farming is a very broad example. Even after introducing fertilizers
and modern techniques of pest control, it is still farming. However,
if you study history, I think you will find that the farming that went
on without fertilizers and without other modern techniques was not
just much less efficient but also much less reliable. The consequence
of that reduced efficiency and reliability was that people - not just
farmers - went hungry. Consider the Great Famine in Ireland, which
took place in the middle of the 19th Century.
I chose farming as an example because it clearly was attainable in a
meaningful long-term sense. Since your only response is to try and change
the goalposts, it seems that you agree.
Post by Abhidevananda
Post by Philip
Post by Abhidevananda
In other
words, sustainability is simply not sustainable. The notion of
sustainability goes against the very laws of nature. Nothing and no
one lives forever. Furthermore, the way in which attempts to achieve
sustainability are implemented inevitably depends on political,
social, economic, and legal factors. In other words, behind the
process of sustainability are various unstated assumptions, a hidden
(or perhaps just unclear or obscured) agenda. Prominent among the
unstated assumptions is the sacrosanct belief in Adam Smith's
"invisible hand", nowadays interpreted to mean "market forces" rather
than "Providence", although both are equally and conveniently vague.
(Under capitalism, "invisible hand" and "market forces" are utopic
rationales for greed.)
Sustainability is a cowardly, unworthy goal for human beings. In
theory, it is largely retrogressive and reactionary. In practice, it
tends to be inhumane and ultimately self-defeating (regardless of any
clever marketing slogans or good intentions). In short, from an
ideological perspective, sustainability is a very poor choice, almost
a non-starter. The only reason it has gained traction in the world is
that it currently serves the interests of wealthy capitalists by
exploiting common fears and sentiments among people in the developed
world. The moment that advocates of sustainability start to point out
that the biggest obstacle to sustainability (other than nature itself)
is the unbalanced distribution of wealth - the over-accumulation of
unutilized, under-utilized, or poorly utilized resources by a relative
few - the irrational notion of sustainability will lose favor with
capitalists and quickly be replaced by another popular dogma.
The only person I've come across promoting the idea that sustainability
implies eternal life is you.
"Promoting" may be a bit of an overstatement to describe my analogy.
But that's no big deal. However, to be clear, I was not talking about
"eternal life". I'm pretty sure that in religious circles, you could
find many people who would readily argue that life is sustainable
eternally. For example, a Christian might say that one only needs to
accept Jesus into one's heart for one to live forever (either on earth
or in heaven). Of course, that type of religious dogma relies on a
belief in yet another myth - the myth of a place called heaven.
What I was talking about is something more down to earth. I was
talking about physical immortality. I was suggesting that nowadays -
both because of and despite scientific advancement - relatively few
people seem to believe that physical immortality is attainable. Of
course, there are some who do think like that. See, for example,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortality#Physical_immortality.
Personally, I see no great leap between the belief in sustainable
development - or just sustainability - and the belief in physical
immortality. Both seem equally unlikely to me, equally mythic.
Quibbling over the distinction between eternal life and immortality is
beside the point. Your so-called analogy only makes sense if you're
assuming that for something to be sustainable it must last forever. What is
your justification for this assumption?
Abhidevananda
2014-11-11 07:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip
I chose farming as an example because it clearly was attainable in
a meaningful long-term sense. Since your only response is to try
and change the goalposts, it seems that you agree.
I do not agree at all. And I have not changed any goalposts.

By the rather low standard you seem to espouse, you could have
described any other basic human activity that is fundamental to
existence, either individually or collectively, as "attainable in a
meaningful long-term sense". What about walking or breathing or
laughing or crying? What about governance or education or trade?
Personally, I don't see what is so "meaningful" when you largely
disregard the goal of those activities, which is actually what the
notion of sustainability comes down to.

Yes, farming has been going on since the Stone Age, and it will likely
continue as long as human beings eat vegetables or grains or fruits.
But why describe that activity as sustainable (or a meaningful
long-term "attainment"), when the real issue is whether the crops are
sufficient to meet society's needs? We don't do farming for the sake
of farming. We do farming for the sake of feeding people. In that
context, farming has never yet reliably satisfied the broad purpose
for which it exists. It has only managed that goal on a sporadic and
localized basis. To talk about farming as sustainable when thus far it
has often failed to sustain is absurd. You might as well talk about
sustaining human fallibility.

My point was - and my point still is - that worrying overmuch about
the "growth of human population" (see the title of this thread) or
society's ability to feed future generations (see the initial posting
by Lance on this thread to which I replied) is counterproductive.
Regardless of the size of the population, up until today the
techniques used to produce and distribute food have heretofore failed
to meet our global society's needs. Today, that can finally change.
Today, we have the technology and the know-how required to ensure that
every human being on this planet is fed a nutritious diet. That must
be our top priority.

One of the key instructions in the ancient wisdom of tantra is to live
in the present (varttámaneśu vartteta). Trying to live in the past or
the future is not a practical or healthy course of action. We can only
live in the present, and that is where our main focus must be. Some
philosophers have a penchant for painting apocalyptic images and then
goading human beings to take shelter or defensive measures against
that imaginary bogey. This happens in the field of religion, and it
happens in other areas of life as well. Those who spread fear by
preaching sustainability (or unsustainability) mostly tend to distort
our lives - and our obligations - in the present.
Post by Philip
Quibbling over the distinction between eternal lie and immortality
is beside the point. Your so-called analogy only makes sense if
you're assuming that for something to be sustainable it must last
forever. What is your justification for this assumption?
Philip, what is your time limit on sustainability, your notion of when
it will be okay for our planet or human society to self-destruct? Will
ten years be enough? Will fifty years be enough? Will one hundred
years be enough? And is that time limit just your own opinion, or do
you derive it from some authoritative source (perhaps a prophet
predicting the end of days)?
Philip
2014-11-15 03:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abhidevananda
Post by Philip
I chose farming as an example because it clearly was attainable in
a meaningful long-term sense. Since your only response is to try
and change the goalposts, it seems that you agree.
I do not agree at all. And I have not changed any goalposts.
By the rather low standard you seem to espouse, you could have
described any other basic human activity that is fundamental to
existence, either individually or collectively, as "attainable in a
meaningful long-term sense". What about walking or breathing or
laughing or crying? What about governance or education or trade?
Personally, I don't see what is so "meaningful" when you largely
disregard the goal of those activities, which is actually what the
notion of sustainability comes down to.
It's not clear what limited resources are at risk of being used up faster
than they can be replenished in the activities you list. I consider the
development of sustainable farming to be significant because it allowed
people to live in large sedentary comunities, giving rise, for better or
worse, to the emergence of modern civilisation. Without it we would still
be hunter-gatherers or nomadic herders.
Post by Abhidevananda
Yes, farming has been going on since the Stone Age, and it will likely
continue as long as human beings eat vegetables or grains or fruits.
But why describe that activity as sustainable (or a meaningful
long-term "attainment"), when the real issue is whether the crops are
sufficient to meet society's needs?
Both issues are real.
Post by Abhidevananda
We don't do farming for the sake
of farming. We do farming for the sake of feeding people. In that
context, farming has never yet reliably satisfied the broad purpose
for which it exists. It has only managed that goal on a sporadic and
localized basis. To talk about farming as sustainable when thus far it
has often failed to sustain is absurd. You might as well talk about
sustaining human fallibility.
You are confusing the ability of farming to be sustained with the ability of
farming to sustain all the individuals in a particular population.
Post by Abhidevananda
My point was - and my point still is - that worrying overmuch about
the "growth of human population" (see the title of this thread) or
society's ability to feed future generations (see the initial posting
by Lance on this thread to which I replied) is counterproductive.
Regardless of the size of the population, up until today the
techniques used to produce and distribute food have heretofore failed
to meet our global society's needs. Today, that can finally change.
Today, we have the technology and the know-how required to ensure that
every human being on this planet is fed a nutritious diet. That must
be our top priority.
It hasn't been your top priority as far as worrying on this nesgroup is
concerned. Think of all the worrying you have done about homeopathy, for
example. Is worrying about homeopathy any less counterproductive than
worrying about society's ability to feed future generations?
Post by Abhidevananda
One of the key instructions in the ancient wisdom of tantra is to live
in the present (varttámaneśu vartteta). Trying to live in the past or
the future is not a practical or healthy course of action. We can only
live in the present, and that is where our main focus must be.
We are lucky that there have been enough people who ignore this instruction,
in every generation so far, for humanity to have survived.
Post by Abhidevananda
Some
philosophers have a penchant for painting apocalyptic images and then
goading human beings to take shelter or defensive measures against
that imaginary bogey. This happens in the field of religion, and it
happens in other areas of life as well. Those who spread fear by
preaching sustainability (or unsustainability) mostly tend to distort
our lives - and our obligations - in the present.
Some people sell fake medecine but that doesn't mean that alll medecine is
fake.
Post by Abhidevananda
Post by Philip
Quibbling over the distinction between eternal lie and immortality
is beside the point. Your so-called analogy only makes sense if
you're assuming that for something to be sustainable it must last
forever. What is your justification for this assumption?
Philip, what is your time limit on sustainability, your notion of when
it will be okay for our planet or human society to self-destruct? Will
ten years be enough? Will fifty years be enough? Will one hundred
years be enough? And is that time limit just your own opinion, or do
you derive it from some authoritative source (perhaps a prophet
predicting the end of days)?
I laughed out loud when I read the opening sentence of this, so I guess that
means I'm okay with 2.8 billion years:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131028-earth-biosignature-doomsday-space-science/
Abhidevananda
2014-11-15 06:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip
Post by Abhidevananda
Post by Philip
I chose farming as an example because it clearly was attainable in
a meaningful long-term sense. Since your only response is to try
and change the goalposts, it seems that you agree.
I do not agree at all. And I have not changed any goalposts.
By the rather low standard you seem to espouse, you could have
described any other basic human activity that is fundamental to
existence, either individually or collectively, as "attainable in a
meaningful long-term sense". What about walking or breathing or
laughing or crying? What about governance or education or trade?
Personally, I don't see what is so "meaningful" when you largely
disregard the goal of those activities, which is actually what the
notion of sustainability comes down to.
It's not clear what limited resources are at risk of being used up faster
than they can be replenished in the activities you list. I consider the
development of sustainable farming to be significant because it allowed
people to live in large sedentary comunities, giving rise, for better or
worse, to the emergence of modern civilisation. Without it we would still
be hunter-gatherers or nomadic herders.
Like I said, it's been going on since the Stone Age. Back then, when
people used up the locally available arable land, they simply
migrated. Sustainability was neither the problem nor the solution.
Today, should the same thing happen, some or all human beings might
also need to migrate... to the ocean floor, to the stratosphere, or to
another planet.

As for those other activities that I listed, I'm sure we can come up
with limited resources. Let's see... uncluttered or unpolluted space
with respect to walking, clean air with respect to breathing,
happiness with respect to laughing, tears with respect to crying,
people to rule over with respect to governance, children to teach with
respect to education, and things to exchange and exchange partners
with respect to trade. Now how difficult was that?
Post by Philip
Post by Abhidevananda
Yes, farming has been going on since the Stone Age, and it will likely
continue as long as human beings eat vegetables or grains or fruits.
But why describe that activity as sustainable (or a meaningful
long-term "attainment"), when the real issue is whether the crops are
sufficient to meet society's needs?
Both issues are real.
I suppose that the second issue you have in mind is the ability to go
on farming (presumably implying the availability of some sort of seeds
and a little bit of minimally arable land). Well, as I said, that
issue may be real, but its reality - and its significance - is on the
same level as all of the examples that I gave. If you are going to
move the goalpost of sustainability out to such a level, the concept
of sustainability might not be a myth, but it is definitely a farce.
Post by Philip
Post by Abhidevananda
We don't do farming for the sake
of farming. We do farming for the sake of feeding people. In that
context, farming has never yet reliably satisfied the broad purpose
for which it exists. It has only managed that goal on a sporadic and
localized basis. To talk about farming as sustainable when thus far it
has often failed to sustain is absurd. You might as well talk about
sustaining human fallibility.
You are confusing the ability of farming to be sustained with the ability of
farming to sustain all the individuals in a particular population.
No, I am not confusing the two concepts. I simply employed variations
of the same word, 'sustain', because it was elegant to do so, and
because it points us at the correct target to be sustained. If Earth
were not populated, no one other than far-distant astronomers would be
likely to care whether the climate of this planet is overheating.
Post by Philip
Post by Abhidevananda
My point was - and my point still is - that worrying overmuch about
the "growth of human population" (see the title of this thread) or
society's ability to feed future generations (see the initial posting
by Lance on this thread to which I replied) is counterproductive.
Regardless of the size of the population, up until today the
techniques used to produce and distribute food have heretofore failed
to meet our global society's needs. Today, that can finally change.
Today, we have the technology and the know-how required to ensure that
every human being on this planet is fed a nutritious diet. That must
be our top priority.
It hasn't been your top priority as far as worrying on this nesgroup is
concerned. Think of all the worrying you have done about homeopathy, for
example. Is worrying about homeopathy any less counterproductive than
worrying about society's ability to feed future generations?
Philip, let's disregard the fact that you are sidestepping my cogent
point with an entirely irrelevant and ill-conceived attack 'ad
hominem' (followed up below with some ridiculous remarks not worthy of
a response). Our debates about homeopathy were long ago. If they did
involve 'worrying' on my part, my concern was the same type of
humanitarian concern that I express here - the need to provide the
fundamental requirements of life to everyone on this planet in the
present. In other words, my concerns were then and are now precisely
what anyone would naturally expect from a humanist.

Some time ago it was pointed out that despite the name of this usenet
group - uk.philosophy.humanism - not everyone who participates on this
forum lives in or hails from the UK. However, it should also be noted
that not everyone who participates on this forum is a humanist. Of
late, I've come to think that the number of humanists on this forum is
far less than the number of British persons on this forum.
Post by Philip
Post by Abhidevananda
One of the key instructions in the ancient wisdom of tantra is to live
in the present (varttámaneśu vartteta). Trying to live in the past or
the future is not a practical or healthy course of action. We can only
live in the present, and that is where our main focus must be.
We are lucky that there have been enough people who ignore this instruction,
in every generation so far, for humanity to have survived.
Post by Abhidevananda
Some
philosophers have a penchant for painting apocalyptic images and then
goading human beings to take shelter or defensive measures against
that imaginary bogey. This happens in the field of religion, and it
happens in other areas of life as well. Those who spread fear by
preaching sustainability (or unsustainability) mostly tend to distort
our lives - and our obligations - in the present.
Some people sell fake medecine but that doesn't mean that alll medecine is
fake.
Post by Abhidevananda
Post by Philip
Quibbling over the distinction between eternal lie and immortality
is beside the point. Your so-called analogy only makes sense if
you're assuming that for something to be sustainable it must last
forever. What is your justification for this assumption?
Philip, what is your time limit on sustainability, your notion of when
it will be okay for our planet or human society to self-destruct? Will
ten years be enough? Will fifty years be enough? Will one hundred
years be enough? And is that time limit just your own opinion, or do
you derive it from some authoritative source (perhaps a prophet
predicting the end of days)?
I laughed out loud when I read the opening sentence of this, so I guess that
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131028-earth-biosignature-doomsday-space-science/
As I expected, a doomsday prophet. Anyway, as you have fixed a time
limit on sustainability, please get back to me in another 2.7999
billion years so that I may ask you the same question again then.
Until that time, I think we can safely put this discussion on hold.
Philip
2014-11-18 01:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abhidevananda
Post by Philip
Post by Abhidevananda
Post by Philip
I chose farming as an example because it clearly was attainable in
a meaningful long-term sense. Since your only response is to try
and change the goalposts, it seems that you agree.
I do not agree at all. And I have not changed any goalposts.
By the rather low standard you seem to espouse, you could have
described any other basic human activity that is fundamental to
existence, either individually or collectively, as "attainable in a
meaningful long-term sense". What about walking or breathing or
laughing or crying? What about governance or education or trade?
Personally, I don't see what is so "meaningful" when you largely
disregard the goal of those activities, which is actually what the
notion of sustainability comes down to.
It's not clear what limited resources are at risk of being used up faster
than they can be replenished in the activities you list. I consider the
development of sustainable farming to be significant because it allowed
people to live in large sedentary comunities, giving rise, for better or
worse, to the emergence of modern civilisation. Without it we would still
be hunter-gatherers or nomadic herders.
Like I said, it's been going on since the Stone Age. Back then, when
people used up the locally available arable land, they simply
migrated. Sustainability was neither the problem nor the solution.
Today, should the same thing happen, some or all human beings might
also need to migrate... to the ocean floor, to the stratosphere, or to
another planet.
The idea of migrating to the stratosphere sounds interesting. How do you
imagine you would stay up there?
Post by Abhidevananda
As for those other activities that I listed, I'm sure we can come up
with limited resources. Let's see... uncluttered or unpolluted space
with respect to walking, clean air with respect to breathing,
happiness with respect to laughing, tears with respect to crying,
people to rule over with respect to governance, children to teach with
respect to education, and things to exchange and exchange partners
with respect to trade. Now how difficult was that?
Post by Philip
Post by Abhidevananda
Yes, farming has been going on since the Stone Age, and it will likely
continue as long as human beings eat vegetables or grains or fruits.
But why describe that activity as sustainable (or a meaningful
long-term "attainment"), when the real issue is whether the crops are
sufficient to meet society's needs?
Both issues are real.
I suppose that the second issue you have in mind is the ability to go
on farming (presumably implying the availability of some sort of seeds
and a little bit of minimally arable land).Well, as I said, that
issue may be real, but its reality - and its significance - is on the
same level as all of the examples that I gave. If you are going to
move the goalpost of sustainability out to such a level, the concept
of sustainability might not be a myth, but it is definitely a farce.
The proposition that happiness is a limited resource used up by laughter is
farcical. The proposition that soil fertility is a limited resource used up
by growing crops is not. Do some more "research".
Post by Abhidevananda
Post by Philip
Post by Abhidevananda
We don't do farming for the sake
of farming. We do farming for the sake of feeding people. In that
context, farming has never yet reliably satisfied the broad purpose
for which it exists. It has only managed that goal on a sporadic and
localized basis. To talk about farming as sustainable when thus far it
has often failed to sustain is absurd. You might as well talk about
sustaining human fallibility.
You are confusing the ability of farming to be sustained with the ability of
farming to sustain all the individuals in a particular population.
No, I am not confusing the two concepts. I simply employed variations
of the same word, 'sustain', because it was elegant to do so, and
because it points us at the correct target to be sustained. If Earth
were not populated, no one other than far-distant astronomers would be
likely to care whether the climate of this planet is overheating.
And that means we shouldn't care either? Why?
Post by Abhidevananda
Post by Philip
Post by Abhidevananda
My point was - and my point still is - that worrying overmuch about
the "growth of human population" (see the title of this thread) or
society's ability to feed future generations (see the initial posting
by Lance on this thread to which I replied) is counterproductive.
Regardless of the size of the population, up until today the
techniques used to produce and distribute food have heretofore failed
to meet our global society's needs. Today, that can finally change.
Today, we have the technology and the know-how required to ensure that
every human being on this planet is fed a nutritious diet. That must
be our top priority.
It hasn't been your top priority as far as worrying on this nesgroup is
concerned. Think of all the worrying you have done about homeopathy, for
example. Is worrying about homeopathy any less counterproductive than
worrying about society's ability to feed future generations?
Philip, let's disregard the fact that you are sidestepping my cogent
point with an entirely irrelevant and ill-conceived attack 'ad
hominem' (followed up below with some ridiculous remarks not worthy of
a response). Our debates about homeopathy were long ago. If they did
involve 'worrying' on my part, my concern was the same type of
humanitarian concern that I express here - the need to provide the
fundamental requirements of life to everyone on this planet in the
present. In other words, my concerns were then and are now precisely
what anyone would naturally expect from a humanist.
What I wrote was a factual observation and your reaction to it attests to
its relevance. If the homeopathy debates were too long ago for you,
consider the past two or three months. You have posted lots of messages
including some on subjects of your own choosing but, as far as I can see,
apart from this thread not a single one has been about your so-called top
priority. Is this because of the counterproductive effect of too many
postings about society's ability to feed future generations? Well, no,
because there haven't been many of those either. In short, the evidence
does not support either of your two points (it's not clear which one you
regard as cogent).
Post by Abhidevananda
Some time ago it was pointed out that despite the name of this usenet
group - uk.philosophy.humanism - not everyone who participates on this
forum lives in or hails from the UK. However, it should also be noted
that not everyone who participates on this forum is a humanist. Of
late, I've come to think that the number of humanists on this forum is
far less than the number of British persons on this forum.
I was under the impression that you had decided long ago that you were the
only proper humanist on this forum, and by my reckoning there are two
British contributors. It's certainly true that one is less than two, but
"far less" seems a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Loading...