Population

[Alan Durant]

If we all agree that a reduction in population would be a good thing how do we see this being brought about? Can it be brought about?

Perhaps we can start by presuming that the four horsemen of the apocalypse are polishing their harness's for a while. Its perfectly possible that humanity will be wiped out by some natural event, (inevitable in the final analysis), but in the mean time.........?

Do we think that population is the most important question facing us?

Would reducing population solve all, most or any of our environmental problems?

Probably I'm putting my head in the lions mouth with this one.

 

Best  Alan

[Roger Hicks]

Alan, How do you think natural selection works if not through survival of the fittest, i.e. the best adapted to their environment? That's the corner stone of Darwin's theory.

I'm not implying what you imply I'm implying at all. We are the first animal with the potential to consciously and rationally decide what constitutes "fitness", rather than continuing to allow a blind and ruthless Mother Nature to do it for us. 

Trouble is, everyone - except me, ;-), and I've still struggling - is totally confused by the state having conflated and confounded the intra-tribal and extra-tribal environments evolution adapted us to respond to very differently. Compassion and altruism are fine human traits, within the right context, but those (institutions) wanting to claim a spurious moral high ground for themselves (and the advantages that go with it) have given them a universality which is totally inappropriate. Striving to love everyone (seeing 7 billion humans as belonging to your own tribe) is not morally admirable but self-serving stupidity. We should love ourselves and our own (tribe, nation), while respecting others. Only the state takes it upon itself to decide who does and doesn't belong to our tribe or nation, thereby demonising our natural inclination to identify most strongly, especially when strangers, with members of our own race.

"Immigration has nothing to do with population it just moves it about."

If Europe's (or Britain's) population were to decline, say to half its present level, which, but for mass immigration it would probably naturally do in the course of this present century, that would, I suggest be readily sustainable.  As it is, mass immigration of peoples with high fertility rates is, insanely, resulting in a further, quite unsustainable, increase in population, especially in Britain, which means that eventually a ruthless Mother Nature will intervene to reduce it, thorough her tried and proven methods of famine, disease, natural disaster and of course bloody human conflict.

"I keep getting the feeling that here is a subtext to what you are saying."

I understand the feeling very well and can explain it. There is a subtext, but not of my making. It's a product of the strong taboos attached to what I'm talking about, intended to prevent us questioning "liberal-fascism/statism's" (see Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism") core ideology (not coincidentally, the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which it uses to claim a misconceived and spurious moral high ground for itself) that now dominates all western democracies.

Just as in the Middle Ages no one was permitted to question the existence of God and the authority of Church teachings, or in Communist Russia, the teachings of Marx and Lenin, so too with the teachings of liberal-statism, the most important of which equates STATE and NATION, thereby imposing on us the oxymoronic absurdity of "multi-ethnic nationhood". 

I did say that I would be pulling the lion's tail, but that is what you do when speaking truth to power.

[Roger Hicks]

Ian, I did in fact make a relevant and on-topic response to the post by Deep Green Resistance, only the response to my response took the discussion in another direction. In retrospect, I realise we should have moved to another thread. Someone might have suggested it, although it too late for that now. I suggest what you, or the original poster, repost with the request to keep the discussion on that particular topic.

[Roger Hicks]

Your paraphrase is incorrect, Wolfbird.

You seem determined to misunderstand, belittle or demonise everything I say, which is a shame. But I shall continue trying to make myself understood, because I believe that I have something important to say, and taboos to break which are preventing us from understanding our situation.

[Roger Hicks]

"Your argument is deceitful, dishonest and obnoxious."

Thanks for that, Wolfbird, which I think it reveals more about you than it does about me. I can't criticise you for finding my arguments "abnoxious", if that is how you find them, but "deceitful" and "dishonest"? That's just a personal insult that makes meaningful discussion impossible.

[Alan Durant]

Hi Roger,

we seem to have gone full circle again. The only comment I want to make is that even with a vastly reduced population The UK would not be immune from worlds events, food shortages weather phenomena fuel and power shortages etc.

You mention "people with high fertility rates" sounds pretty much like racial stereotyping to me.

Your arguments seem confused I trust that your motives are better than they sometimes appear.

Not wishing to be rude but I'm going to stop taking part in this thread as it appears to be going nowhere.

Best  Alan
Roger Hicks said:

Alan, How do you think natural selection works if not through survival of the fittest, i.e. the best adapted to their environment? That's the corner stone of Darwin's theory.

I'm not implying what you imply I'm implying at all. We are the first animal with the potential to consciously and rationally decide what constitutes "fitness", rather than continuing to allow a blind and ruthless Mother Nature to do it for us. 

Trouble is, everyone - except me, ;-), and I've still struggling - is totally confused by the state having conflated and confounded the intra-tribal and extra-tribal environments evolution adapted us to respond to very differently. Compassion and altruism are fine human traits, within the right context, but those (institutions) wanting to claim a spurious moral high ground for themselves (and the advantages that go with it) have given them a universality which is totally inappropriate. Striving to love everyone (seeing 7 billion humans as belonging to your own tribe) is not morally admirable but self-serving stupidity. We should love ourselves and our own (tribe, nation), while respecting others. Only the state takes it upon itself to decide who does and doesn't belong to our tribe or nation, thereby demonising our natural inclination to identify most strongly, especially when strangers, with members of our own race.

"Immigration has nothing to do with population it just moves it about."

If Europe's (or Britain's) population were to decline, say to half its present level, which, but for mass immigration it would probably naturally do in the course of this present century, that would, I suggest be readily sustainable.  As it is, mass immigration of peoples with high fertility rates is, insanely, resulting in a further, quite unsustainable, increase in population, especially in Britain, which means that eventually a ruthless Mother Nature will intervene to reduce it, thorough her tried and proven methods of famine, disease, natural disaster and of course bloody human conflict.

"I keep getting the feeling that here is a subtext to what you are saying."

I understand the feeling very well and can explain it. There is a subtext, but not of my making. It's a product of the strong taboos attached to what I'm talking about, intended to prevent us questioning "liberal-fascism/statism's" (see Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism") core ideology (not coincidentally, the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which it uses to claim a misconceived and spurious moral high ground for itself) that now dominates all western democracies.

Just as in the Middle Ages no one was permitted to question the existence of God and the authority of Church teachings, or in Communist Russia, the teachings of Marx and Lenin, so too with the teachings of liberal-statism, the most important of which equates STATE and NATION, thereby imposing on us the oxymoronic absurdity of "multi-ethnic nationhood". 

I did say that I would be pulling the lion's tail, but that is what you do when speaking truth to power.

[Roger Hicks]

Alan, In your opening post you said that your were "probably putting your head in the lions mouth" in broaching the subject of population, suggesting to me that you were aware of some of the taboos surrounding it. 

I guess you have a problem with me breaking so many taboos.

Of course, the UK and Europe are not immune to what goes on in other parts of the world. However, if there is famine, disease and widespread human conflict in Africa and Asia, as there almost certainly will be because of overpopulation, that doesn't (or rather, didn't) mean we have to have it here as well, although the way things look now, we will. We've made the 3rd World's problem of failing to get a grip on overpopulation very much our problem as well. Something we could and should have avoided. 

It's ironic and tragic: we're importing their problems of overpopulation and potential for ethnic conflicts, while exporting to them our problems of overproduction and consumption, i.e. consumer capitalism.

More than anything else, it was my attempts to understand the utter stupidity of our ruling elites which led me to take a Darwinian view of things, enabling me to see how the healthy Darwinian struggle for group survival and advantage was perverted, in the artificial environment of civilisation, into a fatal struggle for individual power and advantage. We have succeeded in making it more democratic, but thereby making it all the more fatal.

[Douglas Strang]

 Roger,

 

It seems to me that you have wrapped your ideas in pseudo-intellectual gobbledegook, but that at heart you're expounding the kind of racism associated with the BNP.
You continually state that your ideas are sound and it's just that
they've been discredited by Nazism and other atrocities in the past. It
feels to me that it is those ideas that directly lead to such atrocities.

 

You may feel misunderstood, and perhaps I should applaud you for standing your ground, but I must say i find the kind of statements you make repellent (see below). I think you're taking advantage of the fact that this website is unmoderated, and I feel sad that you're pushing your so-called Darwinian view onto every thread you can.

 

I wish you would withdraw and I hope others will register their own protest at your views. I don't think there should be any space given on this network for such comments. No matter how you disguise it, effectively you're saying 'get rid of the foreigners, especially the ones that don't have the same skin colour as me, and everything will be fine'. Have you no sense of history?

 

You wrote: "If Europe's (or Britain's) population were to decline, say to half its present level, which, but for mass immigration it would probably naturally do in the course of this present century, that would, I suggest be readily sustainable.  As it is, mass immigration of peoples with high fertility rates is, insanely, resulting in a further, quite unsustainable, increase in population, especially in Britain..."

 

[bert louis]

I started reading this topic with interest .. impressed by the thoughtful contributions and some glimpses of beautiful persons behind those words ( that's my true incentive you see.) ... but than Wolfbird and Roger took over again.

Ian said: "Can you two please get a room or arrange a dawn pistol duel or something to get whatever-it-is out of your systems?"

Yes, why not get a Google docs account for this purpose and go deep on the ideology of modern - or neotribalisme and its no no's. Than, if at some point a synthesis is reached, please do come back and report. Thanks a million.

Anyway, I wanted to react to this:
"Capitalism must be destroyed."
Capitalism is not some  ideology based on an arbitrary 'truth' (a criterium that can not be empirically validated.) Capitalism is based on a real attribute or property  - the need to profit from one's efforts. So the call for the destruction of capitalism sounds forlorn, for it would entail the removal of a natural quality.
A different capitalistic system could however be possible of course.

Oh, yes. So far this thread is mainly about food. No one has yet mentioned that there is (as far as I understand) a correlation between the growth rate of a human population and it's wealth ... in terms of social equality ( in particular between man and woman,) and for both to have a fair chance to get a decent education and a real prospect to earn a living, and to make something life. The correlation seems to be that when this kind of 'wealth' goes up, birth rates go down.
In short:   I don't think food is the only factor.

[Roger Hicks]

Douglas, Instead of trying to understand my ideas, you are just demonising them, and me with them, whom you want "excommunicated". Does that no remind you of anything? The medieval Church, for example?

I can't imagine you coming out with such accusations if we were sitting together discussing these matters face to face. The lack of personal contact allows you - and Wolfbird - to project your ideas of evil onto me, which you obviously think my ideas represent.

I'm pushing my Darwinian, i.e. human-evolutionary, view, because I'm convince that it is the only way to understand ourselves and our situation, and thus to achieve the goals that the Dark Mountain Project has set itself.

You think that social Darwinists and the Nazis have completely and irretrievable discredited ANY Darwinian approach to viewing human society, but you are wrong. They used - or rather, misused - Darwin's theory to justify their own ideologies and the injustices they produced. I'm not trying to justify anything, but to understand why our society has got itself into such a hopeless mess. In blocking a Darwinian approach, by demonising it, you are preventing us from developing a sound and realistic understanding ourselves and our situation.

You seem to have embraced statist ideology on issues of race and immigration, which like medieval church ideology has no ear for criticism, all of which it simply dismisses and condemns as evil.

[Ian M]

bert louis said:

So far this thread is mainly about food. No one has yet mentioned that there is (as far as I understand) a correlation between the growth rate of a human population and it's wealth ... in terms of social equality ( in particular between man and woman,) and for both to have a fair chance to get a decent education and a real prospect to earn a living, and to make something life. The correlation seems to be that when this kind of 'wealth' goes up, birth rates go down.
In short:   I don't think food is the only factor.

Yay, back on topic!

To me population growth seems to lead to a growth in wealth disparity. In terms of monetary wealth I guess the root of this originates in dense population centers turning into cities which, no longer able to meet subsistence needs from the land under them, are required to suck these from the surrounding country. Thus the 'haves' in the city get fabulously wealthy off the backs of the 'have-nots' who are basically slaves working to produce for an other's needs.

I think we get the same disparity in the other forms of wealth you identify. We in the First World are able to enjoy our token 'inalienable rights' such as relative gender & racial equality, freedom from religious tyranny, access to all kinds of goods & services at ridiculously cheap prices etc. but this comes at the expense of the Third World societies which we exploit. Just think of the oil-producing countries in the Middle East. Some Western analysts have been explicit in saying that we need dictators and despots to do business with over there - indeed we expend considerable energy in propping these regimes up - and repressive social conditions play a part in subduing the local populations while we funnel all the resources out the back door.

How does this relate to population growth and food? Quinn wrote that:

"The phenomenon as it's observed is this: `Every increase in food production to feed an increased population is answered by another increase in population.' This says nothing about where these increases occur."

"I don't get it."

"An increase in food production in Nebraska doesn't necessarily produce a population increase in Nebraska. It may produce a population increase somewhere in India or Africa."

"I still don't get it."

"Every increase in food production is answered by an increase in population somewhere. In other words, someone is consuming Nebraska's surpluses—and if they weren't, Nebraska's farmers would stop producing those surpluses, pronto."

"True," I said, and spent a few moments in thought. "Are you suggesting that First World farmers are fueling the Third World population explosion?"

"Ultimately," he said, "who else is there to fuel it?"

(link)

So yes, First Worlders often have the luxury of a reduced birthrate - in some cases even a declining birthrate - but this represents just one side of the equation. Clearly you're not alone in valuing 'a decent education and a real prospect to earn a living, and to make something [of] life'. Unfortunately these activities rarely come about after the basic subsistence needs have been met. (Indeed the historical pattern seems to run something like this: "Ah, I see some colonialist f*%k has destroyed my means of subsistence. Oh well, I guess now I'll have to get a job / an education / go to the city.") This means that somebody else has to work to keep you alive, and that's where you find the population increase - among the slaves. We throw surplus food their way to grow their populations because (currently) they're worth more to us alive than dead. In corporate jargon, the cost has been externalised.

 

That's how I understand it anyway...

 

cheers,

Ian

[Douglas Strang]

Hi Roger,

I'm not calling you evil and I'm sorry if you feel demonised; I just strongly disagree with your views. Hand on heart, I can say that if we were sat at a table holding a similar conversation, I would still tell you that I feel repelled by what you've said.

You advocate restructuring society through racial division. I call that racism and I would rather that this network did not provide a platform for such views. That's just my opinion. I'd also rather it didn't provide a platform for openly expressed sexism or sectarianism, etc, etc, but perhaps these are also taboos that need challenging.

You may well want to reply, and carry on defending your ideas, but I'm afraid I have no wish to argue with you so you'll hear no more from me.

 

Roger Hicks said:

Douglas, Instead of trying to understand my ideas, you are just demonising them, and me with them, whom you want "excommunicated". Does that no remind you of anything? The medieval Church, for example?

I can't imagine you coming out with such accusations if we were sitting together discussing these matters face to face. The lack of personal contact allows you - and Wolfbird - to project your ideas of evil onto me, which you obviously think my ideas represent.

I'm pushing my Darwinian, i.e. human-evolutionary, view, because I'm convince that it is the only way to understand ourselves and our situation, and thus to achieve the goals that the Dark Mountain Project has set itself.

You think that social Darwinists and the Nazis have completely and irretrievable discredited ANY Darwinian approach to viewing human society, but you are wrong. They used - or rather, misused - Darwin's theory to justify their own ideologies and the injustices they produced. I'm not trying to justify anything, but to understand why our society has got itself into such a hopeless mess. In blocking a Darwinian approach, by demonising it, you are preventing us from developing a sound and realistic understanding ourselves and our situation.

You seem to have embraced statist ideology on issues of race and immigration, which like medieval church ideology has no ear for criticism, all of which it simply dismisses and condemns as evil.

[bert louis]

@ Ian.
OK. Let's see if I got this right.

You don't really think that what I called the 'wealth of a nation' has much to do with the average number of children a women has. I get that because what I meant by 'wealth' can be interpreted in many different ways - I was rather vague.

From the media a have come to understand that the massive dumping of food surplus on markets of the African continent destroys the local markets and the livelihood of many small time farmers because they cannot compete against the low prices.

 I take it that you say that the food industry is ultimately responsible for the high birthrate in Africa. You explanation for this situation goes something like: this industry is in the business of producing food and selling it. To protect the interests of the food industry the foreign policy of Europe and America is to keep ruthless regimes in power and to make deals with them. In return these regimes enslave there own people, and make them produce more children to buy more of the food stuff.

I am not sure how to respond to this vision, so I'll await you comment to hear if I got you idea right. 
In the mean time I would like to zoom in a bit further into to the feeling that it is not just food and the way it is produced, marketed and the politics behind it to support the food industry, that are at the root of this population issue.

Sometime ago I heard about an African women (I believe I saw an interview with her on CNN) who is working to educate and empower African women because she believes that educated and self-conscious women have less children.

I believe her.