Post: #1

I don't think this will surprise people on this forum but according to a new report, the Gates Foundation is nothing more than a globalcorp foundation used to serve the Elite interests of depopulation.

Gates Foundation accused of 'dangerously skewing' aid priorities by promoting 'corporate globalisation'

From the report:

Quote:Far from a “neutral charitable strategy”, the Gates Foundation is about benefiting big business, especially in agriculture and health, through its “ideological commitment to promote neoliberal economic policies and corporate globalisation,” according to the report published by the campaign group Global Justice. Its influence is “dangerously skewing” aid priorities, the group says.

Read the rest here

I don't understand why they want to reduce the world's population. Do they seriously believe that the Earth is running out of resources?

Post: #2

If they're trying to REDUCE the world population, well, they're failing. Drastically.

The population is reducing only in the West, and for different reasons than simply globalist Bill Gates schemes....

Post: #3

Too many people in the world. Guys need to learn how to pullout. I dont understand why couples need to have more than 2 kids.

Post: #4

I know a lawyer that used to work for The Gates Foundation and she said it's very corrupt. The vast majority of these large foundations are nothing more than neo-imperialist fronts for globocorp.

Post: #5

(01-27-2016 03:10 AM)Pride male Wrote:  Too many people in the world. Guys need to learn how to pullout. I dont understand why couples need to have more than 2 kids.

1. Overpopulation is a myth. There is no evidence that Earth has reached its human carrying capacity.

2. Technically, no single individual "needs" to have any kids at all. People choose to procreate. The extent to which they do so is purely up to them. There is nothing inherently immoral, unwise, or wasteful about having more than 2 children.

3. The benefits of above-replacement level fertility for any given demographic group are significant. Sub-replacement fertility rates have substantial long-term downsides for any group.

Personally, I don't understand why couples see the need to limit the number of children to 2, especially when their financial/logistical situation allows for more. These same people probably don't understand why I hope to have at least 4 children (and/or why I'd have as many children as possible if my finances allowed it).

We're welcome to have our differences, but implying that there is shame in conducting a completely natural act (having more than 2 children) is misguided at best. Those who desire 2, 1, or 0 children are free to make that choice for themselves, but there's nothing objectively and inherently superior about said choice and it is incorrect to make any implication to the contrary.

Post: #6

(01-27-2016 03:23 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 03:10 AM)Pride male Wrote:  Too many people in the world. Guys need to learn how to pullout. I dont understand why couples need to have more than 2 kids.

1. Overpopulation is a myth. There is no evidence that Earth has reached its human carrying capacity.

2. Technically, no single individual "needs" to have any kids at all. People choose to procreate. The extent to which they do so is purely up to them. There is nothing inherently immoral, unwise, or wasteful about having more than 2 children.

3. The benefits of above-replacement level fertility for any given demographic group are significant. Sub-replacement fertility rates have substantial long-term downsides for any group.

Personally, I don't understand why couples see the need to limit the number of children to 2, especially when their financial/logistical situation allows for more. These same people probably don't understand why I hope to have at least 4 children (and/or why I'd have as many children as possible if my finances allowed it).

We're welcome to have our differences, but implying that there is shame in conducting a completely natural act (having more than 2 children) is misguided at best. Those who desire 2, 1, or 0 children are free to make that choice for themselves, but there's nothing objectively and inherently superior about said choice and it is incorrect to make any implication to the contrary.

What about the poor who just keep having kids despite having no financial means to responsibly take care of said children?

Post: #7

I'm with Excelsior on this one.

I think too many people have been brainwashed to think that having more than 2 children is a great burden on the world. I see that as nothing more than an extension of the nihilism that has pervaded western thought recently: "people are bad, mmmkay?"

Like you, I don't care if people don't want to have kids. I'm still undecided myself, but I see it as my given-right to do so and don't shame people for having kids. It is sorta whacky that western societies actively encouraging forgoing the creation of a family when it is the family that is the building block of a healthy society. And it is hardworking families that pay taxes an enable a lot of the whacky anti-family shit that goes on.

Post: #8

(01-27-2016 03:58 AM)Fortis Wrote:  ^ Exactly.

I think too many people have been brainwashed to think that having more than 2 children is a great burden on the world. I see that as nothing more than an extension of the nihilism that has pervaded western thought recently: "people are bad, mmmkay?"

Like you, I don't care if people don't want to have kids. I'm still undecided myself, but I see it as my given-right to do so and don't shame people for having kids. It is sorta whacky that western societies actively encouraging forgoing the creation of a family when it is the family that is the building block of a healthy society. And it is hardworking families that pay taxes an enable a lot of the whacky anti-family shit that goes on.

Depends if you can afford it on your own or if you are doing it with govt. assistance. A lot of the cynicism towards having more than a couple of kids is because the amount of govt. help you get for doing so if you don't make a pretty good amount of money. And people are frustrated and sick of having to work hard and then have their money stolen and given to people who continue to make bad decisions and get rewarded for it.

Post: #9

And off-topic in less than ten posts.

We do not have a population number problem, we have a population quality problem. Instead of infamous but reasonable eugenics (i.e. breeding of the good, strong and smart) we have dysgenics (i.e. breeding of the dysfunctional) and that will lead to a terrible future. In our countries, we subsidize the poor and burden the productive class, increasing the former and decreasing the latter. Between countries, the more functional peoples are not making many babies while the aid-dependent ones are popping out one after the other.

People that should have babies: "Already too many people on Earth, so I will have zero, one or two. And what about adoption?"

People that should not have babies: "Oops, pregnant again. Where's my welfare check?"

So in the end, this line of 'correct' thinking leads to an increasing class of dumb proles without foresight and the prudent class breeding itself out of existence, taking free societies, human rights and stability with them.

***

On topic: Instead of seeing articles like this, and remembering the Gates Foundation is shit, we should track who is who. An organization is nothing but an abstraction, buildings and paper. It is about the people. Who is running things? Who are they connected to? Where is the money coming from and going to?

Post: #10

I posted this comment in the Zuck Foundation thread, but it's acceptable here as well.

Foundations are nothing more than giant tax dodges the rich do to ensure their wealth is out of the hands of the government till the end of time ensuring your family's wealth is dolled out appropriately in amounts that ensure your children get paid $350,000 for BS non work. The foundation can claim some BS about helping Africa or women by donating maybe 1 or 2 million to some random cause. You can employ yourself, your wife, and your kids at healthy 6 figures essentially making it a glorified trust fund.

The real kicker is when said billionaire donates money to his foundation he gets a fat tax write off as well where he can then pay himself with the money he donated.

I hope in the coming years we see foundations like Zuck's, the Gates foundation, Soros's foundation, and all of the major trusts the Rothchild's use to start being raided by tax revenue hungry governments. These foundations do nothing, are leaches, and encourage hoarding. After the Clinton Foundation fiasco, i'd love a good documentary writer to expose this cold hard truth to the masses.

Post: #11

(01-27-2016 04:46 AM)sixsix Wrote:  And off-topic in less than ten posts.

We do not have a population number problem, we have a population quality problem. Instead of infamous but reasonable eugenics (i.e. breeding of the good, strong and smart) we have dysgenics (i.e. breeding of the dysfunctional) and that will lead to a terrible future. In our countries, we subsidize the poor and burden the productive class, increasing the former and decreasing the latter. Between countries, the more functional peoples are not making many babies while the aid-dependent ones are popping out one after the other.

People that should have babies: "Already too many people on Earth, so I will have zero, one or two. And what about adoption?"

People that should not have babies: "Oops, pregnant again. Where's my welfare check?"

So in the end, this line of 'correct' thinking leads to an increasing class of dumb proles without foresight and the prudent class breeding itself out of existence, taking free societies, human rights and stability with them.

***

On topic: Instead of seeing articles like this, and remembering the Gates Foundation is shit, we should track who is who. An organization is nothing but an abstraction, buildings and paper. It is about the people. Who is running things? Who are they connected to? Where is the money coming from and going to?

This tends to happen in massive population increases of any kind though. Low IQ people have consistently shown to outproduce high IQ people, and right now you have incentives for such a situation in welfare states where resources get transferred from primarily the middle/professional class to the old and the legions of poor.

At any rate, the accusations against the Gates Foundation are nothing new. They're supposedly ruthlessly cost-benefit oriented and cut deals with some of the corporations we all know of like Monsanto.

Post: #12

(01-27-2016 04:46 AM)sixsix Wrote:  We do not have a population number problem, we have a population quality problem. Instead of infamous but reasonable eugenics (i.e. breeding of the good, strong and smart) we have dysgenics (i.e. breeding of the dysfunctional) and that will lead to a terrible future. In our countries, we subsidize the poor and burden the productive class, increasing the former and decreasing the latter. Between countries, the more functional peoples are not making many babies while the aid-dependent ones are popping out one after the other.

People that should have babies: "Already too many people on Earth, so I will have zero, one or two. And what about adoption?"

People that should not have babies: "Oops, pregnant again. Where's my welfare check?"

So in the end, this line of 'correct' thinking leads to an increasing class of dumb proles without foresight and the prudent class breeding itself out of existence, taking free societies, human rights and stability with them.

You forgot to add this timeless gem:

Post: #13

(01-27-2016 09:21 AM)Celtic_Austrian Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 04:46 AM)sixsix Wrote:  We do not have a population number problem, we have a population quality problem. Instead of infamous but reasonable eugenics (i.e. breeding of the good, strong and smart) we have dysgenics (i.e. breeding of the dysfunctional) and that will lead to a terrible future. In our countries, we subsidize the poor and burden the productive class, increasing the former and decreasing the latter. Between countries, the more functional peoples are not making many babies while the aid-dependent ones are popping out one after the other.

People that should have babies: "Already too many people on Earth, so I will have zero, one or two. And what about adoption?"

People that should not have babies: "Oops, pregnant again. Where's my welfare check?"

So in the end, this line of 'correct' thinking leads to an increasing class of dumb proles without foresight and the prudent class breeding itself out of existence, taking free societies, human rights and stability with them.

You forgot to add this timeless gem:

One of my favorite movies. Mike Judge was way ahead on all of this.

Post: #14

People are arguing against overpopulation from a utopic bubble.

How about jobs? There's nearly 25% underemployment in the US, one of the richest and most developed countries in the world. That's even after all of the currently useless, redundant jobs out there.

What is going to happen in 50 years when we have the technology to replace 75% of manual labor, manufacturing, and service related jobs with robots? Tax the shit out of everyone and distribute the wealth? Keep a bunch of worthless jobs just to give people something to do?

Half of the countries in the world can't even support their current population. You have nearly 1 billion people living on less than $2 a day.

Sure, there's technically enough money and resources to support the world. But again, we don't live in a utopia.

Just because the Earth can sustain more people doesn't mean we should try. I'm sure 4 people could probably live in my 1 bedroom condo too, but that doesn't mean it's even close to ideal.

It's very easy to prove what I'm saying. Simply compare Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong to China. Despite the fact that they're all ethnically very similar, the smaller countries have the higher standard of living.

Look at GDP per capita ranked by country. All of the top spots are held by smaller countries.

The only exceptions are US, Australia, and Canada, all of which have extremely low population densities.

Post: #15

People in poor countries have lots of kids because when you get old, it is your kids who take care of you. And if you live in a poor country, there is a stronger chance your kid will die of some disease or something before you. Say you have two kids, they both die before their 20, who will take care of you when your too old to work? This is why poor countries typically have much higher population growths. People in first world countries don't care as much because the government will take care of you to some degree, so rates are lower. Not to mention poorer people don't have as much access to abortions or birth control, generally speaking.

Post: #16

Anybody who promotes the concept of overpopulation and suggest different ways of reducing population should start with themselves and stop breathing.

G

Post: #17

(01-27-2016 12:18 PM)Enigma Wrote:  People are arguing against overpopulation from a utopic bubble.

How about jobs? There's nearly 25% underemployment in the US, one of the richest and most developed countries in the world. That's even after all of the currently useless, redundant jobs out there.

What is going to happen in 50 years when we have the technology to replace 75% of manual labor, manufacturing, and service related jobs with robots? Tax the shit out of everyone and distribute the wealth? Keep a bunch of worthless jobs just to give people something to do?

Universal Basic Income.

That is, of course, assuming your scenario comes to pass, which is a pretty large assumption in and of itself.

Quote:Half of the countries in the world can't even support their current population. You have nearly 1 billion people living on less than $2 a day.

Sure, there's technically enough money and resources to support the world. But again, we don't live in a utopia.

Just because the Earth can sustain more people doesn't mean we should try.

Global inequality is not an argument for intentional de-population. It is an argument for efforts to address global inequality. If we follow your argument's natural conclusion and force de-population, nothing will change if the underlying causes of inequality aren't addressed. We could shrink the population, but the percentage of have-nots will remain the same absent an effort to deal with the underlying cause.

The fact that there may be downsides in a population growth scenario is no reason to invite idiocracy (which is a natural consequence of your argument). The consequences of idiocracy are vastly more severe than any hypothetical you can propose in favor of de-population.

Finally, human capital has value that de-population arguments do not recognize. People do not all merely just laze around and exist. They hustle, think, create, and innovate. It is for this reason that a growing population does not carry the universal downside you imply. Its risks are countered by the improved potential for innovation, creativity, and positive action that humans bring to the table. A scenario in which we intentionally decrease our human capital (and, consequently, dramatically age our population) is a scenario in which the potential for said innovation, creativity, and positive action is dramatically reduced (that's aside from the inherent economic unsustainability of population aging/decline).

Human capital has the ability to innovate in such a way as to undermine the risks associated with population growth, and it has done so on countless occasions in the past. Just as Malthus (whose philosophy you and many of those in support of de-population are largely paralleling) failed to see the potential for human innovation to alleviate the limits he saw in agriultural productivity, I posit that you too may also fail to see the potential for human innovation to alleviate the economic, spacial, and other limits you've mentioned.

Malthus had a great argument at the time his most famous work was published. Overpopulation was certainly an issue on the horizon given the factors in play in his environment during his time.
The problem is that the environment and the factors in play within it change over time, and it is human innovation that largely drives this change. We shouldn't be so quick to count this out, and we shouldn't be so quick to limit the potential for such innovation by suggesting that the very people most capable of driving it forward (highly intelligent, educated individuals) breed themselves out of existence or into a smaller demographic corner. If we're to have any progress in the future at all and any hope of maintaining the free societies and respect for basic human rights that we've come to take for granted, such individuals must be more numerous, not less.

The fact that we do not reside in a utopia is precisely the reason why we should put more value on human capital and go out of our way to ward off the threat of idiocracy. Absent such efforts, we have no hope of making any progress on the myriad of problems that distinguish our world from a utopia in the first place.

Quote:It's very easy to prove what I'm saying. Simply compare Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong to China. Despite the fact that they're all ethnically very similar, the smaller countries have the higher standard of living.

Look at GDP per capita ranked by country. All of the top spots are held by smaller countries.

The only exceptions are US, Australia, and Canada, all of which have extremely low population densities.

1. These countries did not build their wealth on the backs of aging, declining populations and they will not be able to sustain their wealth in the long-term with aging, declining populations (unless they look abroad, which brings me to my next point...). First-world wealth is built on the backs of young, growing, dynamic populations and sustained by them too. Old, aging, shrinkin populations are the ones that do away with that wealth.

2. Several of the nations you have mentioned have a habit of relying on cheap foreign labor. Singapore is small and rich, yes, but its sustenance depends heavily on the importation of workers from larger, more fertile nations. The same goes for most of its peer nations (some of whom you listed). The population that builds that high standard of living is much larger than the population of the nation itself. Remove that human capital from the equation and you get a picture of the situation in these nations that isn't nearly as rosy.


The fact that so many in the west place so little value on the perpetuation and proliferation of their lineage and argue so vehemently against their own biological imperative (replacing themselves) says a lot about the future of this civilization, and none of it is good. A civilization with no concern for its own self and those who will inherit it is not a civilization that can persist.

Thanks to the rise of birth control and legal abortion, we have entered a new stage in Darwinian evolution, one that actively selects for natalism and brutally punishes those with limited (if any) procreative drive. At some point, the breeders are all that will be left, for better or worse.

No civilization has gone into a state of long-term sub-replacement fertility and survived. The modern western world will be no exception.

Post: #18

(01-27-2016 08:16 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  Universal Basic Income.

That is, of course, assuming your scenario comes to pass, which is a pretty large assumption in and of itself.

How is it a large assumption?

We already have robots capable of manufacturing, we already have self-driving cars, etc. It's simply not ready to be introduced into the workforce en masse because either it's cost prohibitive or the technology is not yet mature enough.

If you look at how technology has advanced over the past 50 years and the technology we currently have, it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that what I said will come to pass.

The first computer was only like 70 years ago, and it filled an entire room. Now they fit in our pocket.

Quote:Global inequality is not an argument for intentional de-population. It is an argument for efforts to address global inequality. If we follow your argument's natural conclusion and force de-population, nothing will change if the underlying causes of inequality aren't addressed. We could shrink the population, but the percentage of have-nots will remain the same absent an effort to deal with the underlying cause.

<snip>

I never made an argument for depopulation. In fact, I don't think anyone in this thread did. Most of us reject Gates's globalist agenda, I would assume.

My argument was against the idea that we should all just have as many kids as possible because there's nothing that could possible go wrong. Not once did I even hint at any sort of solution to either depopulate or even slow population. What I posted was completely theoretical.

And again, you are basing your argument on a utopia.

Universal Basic Income for the entire planet? Even if you did miraculously implement that, it would be a total disaster.

Quote:1. These countries did not build their wealth on the backs of aging, declining populations and they will not be able to sustain their wealth in the long-term with aging, declining populations (unless they look abroad, which brings me to my next point...). First-world wealth is built on the backs of young, growing, dynamic populations and sustained by them too. Old, aging, shrinkin populations are the ones that do away with that wealth.

2. Several of the nations you have mentioned have a habit of relying on cheap foreign labor. Singapore is small and rich, yes, but its sustenance depends heavily on the importation of workers from larger, more fertile nations. The same goes for most of its peer nations (some of whom you listed). The population that builds that high standard of living is much larger than the population of the nation itself. Remove that human capital from the equation and you get a picture of the situation in these nations that isn't nearly as rosy.

The GDP per capita in Singapore is 5x times that of China. Their foreign workers also get paid more than what the lower class in China makes.

The comparison here is not even close.

If they didn't have 1.3 foreign workers, they would just have their citizens do the jobs and still come out ahead of China in overall standard of living. Even with foreign workers, Singapore has a population of less than 7 million. China's is 1.3 billion.

The point being that among developed countries, the smaller ones tend to have the higher average income and better overall standard of living.

If you shift focus to Europe, you see the same thing. The three countries that are pointed to are Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, which are again among the least populated countries on the continent. Norway has 50% higher GDP per capita over Germany.

The less citizens you have, the easier it is to incorporate them into the workforce and take care of their needs.

The same concept applies to developing countries. The larger the population, the bigger the problems they face. If you cut the population of places like India or the Philippines in half, their economic and social problems would instantly become much more manageable.

Quote:The fact that so many in the west place so little value on the perpetuation and proliferation of their lineage and argue so vehemently against their own biological imperative (replacing themselves) says a lot about the future of this civilization, and none of it is good. A civilization with no concern for its own self and those who will inherit it is not a civilization that can persist.

Thanks to the rise of birth control and legal abortion, we have entered a new stage in Darwinian evolution, one that actively selects for natalism and brutally punishes those with limited (if any) procreative drive. At some point, the breeders are all that will be left, for better or worse.

No civilization has gone into a state of long-term sub-replacement fertility and survived. The modern western world will be no exception.

Again, nowhere did I say people shouldn't reproduce. You can carry on your lineage without having 4 kids. You act like humans are on the verge of extinction or something.

My argument was specifically addressing the idea that everyone just have as many kids as they can because there's no way it can possibly cause negative effects.

Like I said, you are arguing from a bubble without any regard to constantly changing external factors.

Comparing the future to the past on the issue of population does not make sense.

1. The population is continually going up. Just because the world wasn't overpopulated 100 years ago at 5 billion doesn't mean it won't be overpopulated in the next 100 years when it's 10 billion.

Civilizations may rise and fall but global population is on a continuous upward trend.

2. It fails to account for advances in medical science. Life expectancy is only going up, and that's before you even account for research in areas like stem cells, genetic engineering, cloning, etc.

Just like robots, this technology already exists. We can already clone and genetically engineer animals, we are already growing organs in laboratories and animals, etc.

Many people would argue that medical science is already capable of curing/removing most major diseases, but it's simply not profitable to do so.

Again, we are nowhere near the brink of extinction. On the contrary, we may see mortality as we know it completely changed in the not-so-distant future.

Post: #19

(01-27-2016 01:54 PM)Repo Wrote:  People in poor countries have lots of kids because when you get old, it is your kids who take care of you. And if you live in a poor country, there is a stronger chance your kid will die of some disease or something before you. Say you have two kids, they both die before their 20, who will take care of you when your too old to work? This is why poor countries typically have much higher population growths. People in first world countries don't care as much because the government will take care of you to some degree, so rates are lower. Not to mention poorer people don't have as much access to abortions or birth control, generally speaking.

I don't believe this to be true. In fact they get more abortions.


https://www.guttmacher.org/media/infogra...poor2.html

As far as lower incomes go, I say it's a mixed bag. You have some that scam daddy government and keep popping out kids for more resources. On the other hand you have the ones getting the abortions. There are a whole litany of reasons why they are choosing to abort, but they do have access.

Post: #20

(01-28-2016 01:45 AM)Enigma Wrote:  How is it a large assumption?

We already have robots capable of manufacturing, we already have self-driving cars, etc. It's simply not ready to be introduced into the workforce en masse because either it's cost prohibitive or the technology is not yet mature enough.

We have commercial airliners that can already fly themselves or be flown remotely. Have pilots become obsolete? We don't necessarily need as many men in cockpits as we do given current technological advances, so why do we have them?

Technology has its limits. New technologies will be introduced and some occupations will be made redundant. There is no guarantee that said technology will a) be cost effective relative to human labor (especially if said labor can be had in the developing world at a fraction of the cost of the labor in the west where pay and work conditions are the best on Earth) and b) as effective as human labor in every field.

Whether this comes to pass is still to be seen; there is no guarantee. We'll probably find out in our lifetimes. Change will come and redundancies will be made, but the idea that 75% of manual labor, service, and other such jobs will become entirely obsolete in the near future is not a given.

Quote:If you look at how technology has advanced over the past 50 years and the technology we currently have, it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that what I said will come to pass.

We will see.

Quote:The first computer was only like 70 years ago, and it filled an entire room. Now they fit in our pocket.

My Blackberry is more powerful than the computer used to take American astronauts to the moon in 1969. I get it.

We'll see where technology takes us.

Quote:I never made an argument for depopulation. In fact, I don't think anyone in this thread did. Most of us reject Gates's globalist agenda, I would assume.

My argument was against the idea that we should all just have as many kids as possible because there's nothing that could possible go wrong. Not once did I even hint at any sort of solution to either depopulate or even slow population. What I posted was completely theoretical.

Alright, you never argued for depopulation. My apologies for conflating such arguments with your own.

However, I must note that I never said we should "all just have as many kids as possible because there's nothing that could possibly go wrong". That is not my argument. I stated quite early on that people should be free to have 1 or 2 kids (or no kids) if they so desire. Granted, I think there are severe consequences to such action if taken by enough individuals in a given society to create sub-replacement fertility (as seen in the modern western world today), but so long as people are willing to accept said consequences, I accept their choice. Nowhere did I claim that everyone should have as many kids as possible even if they only want 0, 1, or 2.

What I did argue against, however, was the notion that choosing to have more than 2 children is immoral, dangerous, irresponsible, or otherwise worthy of condemnation and moral subordination to the 2-children-or-less alternative. People are free to have 2 children or less if they feel that's right for them, but they have no grounds to claim moral superiority for doing so. There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with choosing to have a large family.

Quote:Universal Basic Income for the entire planet? Even if you did miraculously implement that, it would be a total disaster.

It likely would not take hold throughout the entirety of the planet. You would see UBI in the developed nations most likely to be hit by decreased employment in 75%-jobs-replaced scenario. Those in the developing world will have a lower proliferation of people-replacing machines (which will be costly) and a larger number of the service/manual labor jobs made redundant in the west (due to the fact that their citizens work for much lower wages and are likely to remain cost-effective for much longer, if not indefinitely). This, combined with the propensity for governments in much of the developing world to have limited competence/ability to maintain social security systems/safety nets/stable governments in general will make UBI rare outside of the west.

The future you envision (should it come to pass) will see an increasingly lazy west (in which even the bulk of the middle class can be freed from work and allowed to live like a lotus-eating trustafarian) surrounded by a much poorer, harder working developing world.

Quote:The GDP per capita in Singapore is 5x times that of China. Their foreign workers also get paid more than what the lower class in China makes.

The comparison here is not even close.

If they didn't have 1.3 foreign workers, they would just have their citizens do the jobs and still come out ahead of China in overall standard of living. Even with foreign workers, Singapore has a population of less than 7 million. China's is 1.3 billion.

The point being that among developed countries, the smaller ones tend to have the higher average income and better overall standard of living.

If you shift focus to Europe, you see the same thing. The three countries that are pointed to are Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, which are again among the least populated countries on the continent. Norway has 50% higher GDP per capita over Germany.

The less citizens you have, the easier it is to incorporate them into the workforce and take care of their needs.

The same concept applies to developing countries. The larger the population, the bigger the problems they face. If you cut the population of places like India or the Philippines in half, their economic and social problems would instantly become much more manageable.

You said you weren't arguing for depopulation, but this bit sounds rather sympathetic to the idea of depopulation. Am I missing something?

Quote:My argument was specifically addressing the idea that everyone just have as many kids as they can because there's no way it can possibly cause negative effects.

Again, I never made that argument.

Quote:Like I said, you are arguing from a bubble without any regard to constantly changing external factors.

Comparing the future to the past on the issue of population does not make sense.

1. The population is continually going up. Just because the world wasn't overpopulated 100 years ago at 5 billion doesn't mean it won't be overpopulated in the next 100 years when it's 10 billion.

Civilizations may rise and fall but global population is on a continuous upward trend.

Comparing the future to the past on the issue of fertility rates makes plenty of sense. Regardless of the size of any given nation, the fact remains that civilizations with long-term sub-fertility trends do not survive the duration of said trend. They are replaced. That means that if you argue in favor of said trends by supporting de-population (as I mistakenly thought you to have done earlier), you argue to the accelerated fall of the civilization at hand.

As for the more general topic of global overpopulation, we don't know what Earth's carrying capacity is. Estimates I've seen go up as high as 14 Billion now, and that could also move depending on technological advances (nevermind the potential for the addition of extra-terrestrial carrying capacity in coming decades).

Whatever the answer, odds are good that we'll live to find out. The next 50 years are going to be very interesting.

Quote:2. It fails to account for advances in medical science. Life expectancy is only going up, and that's before you even account for research in areas like stem cells, genetic engineering, cloning, etc.

Just like robots, this technology already exists. We can already clone and genetically engineer animals, we are already growing organs in laboratories and animals, etc.

Many people would argue that medical science is already capable of curing/removing most major diseases, but it's simply not profitable to do so.

Again, we are nowhere near the brink of extinction. On the contrary, we may see mortality as we know it completely changed in the not-so-distant future.

Similarly substantial technological advances could also make higher populations less problematic than currently expected. We can't be sure of that but, again, we'll probably live to find out.

Post: #21

A universal income and digital currency are the elite's dream world. If it happens, we're all fucked. They'll eventually own all land and valuable assets. All men that ascribe to neomasculinity should despise these proposals the same as communism.

Post: #22

Maybe the Gates foundation is behind all the Cash4Gold stores.

Post: #23

(01-28-2016 02:43 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  We have commercial airliners that can already fly themselves or be flown remotely. Have pilots become obsolete? We don't necessarily need as many men in cockpits as we do given current technological advances, so why do we have them?

Technology has its limits. New technologies will be introduced and some occupations will be made redundant. There is no guarantee that said technology will a) be cost effective relative to human labor (especially if said labor can be had in the developing world at a fraction of the cost of the labor in the west where pay and work conditions are the best on Earth) and b) as effective as human labor in every field.

Whether this comes to pass is still to be seen; there is no guarantee. We'll probably find out in our lifetimes. Change will come and redundancies will be made, but the idea that 75% of manual labor, service, and other such jobs will become entirely obsolete in the near future is not a given.

But you're arguing for the technology we already have. That technology will be much, much more advanced in 50 years. It will also be much, much cheaper.

It may not replace exactly 75% of the labor, that was just a number I threw out there. But I think it's safe to say that automation will be able to replace a pretty significant number of jobs, if needed.

Also, as I mentioned in my first post, many of the jobs we have already and redundant. This is true even in the developed world, but even more so in the developing world.

Quote:Alright, you never argued for depopulation. My apologies for conflating such arguments with your own.

However, I must note that I never said we should "all just have as many kids as possible because there's nothing that could possibly go wrong". That is not my argument. I stated quite early on that people should be free to have 1 or 2 kids (or no kids) if they so desire. Granted, I think there are severe consequences to such action if taken by enough individuals in a given society to create sub-replacement fertility (as seen in the modern western world today), but so long as people are willing to accept said consequences, I accept their choice. Nowhere did I claim that everyone should have as many kids as possible even if they only want 0, 1, or 2.

What I did argue against, however, was the notion that choosing to have more than 2 children is immoral, dangerous, irresponsible, or otherwise worthy of condemnation and moral subordination to the 2-children-or-less alternative. People are free to have 2 children or less if they feel that's right for them, but they have no grounds to claim moral superiority for doing so. There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with choosing to have a large family.

Fair enough. I'm not saying it's immoral to have 4 kids either, I just think we should put some thought into it.

Also, to be clear, I am talking from a global perspective. Obviously a country like the US could easily support another 100 million people or so. And I'm not saying Americans should stop reproducing and let themselves die off.

Quote:It likely would not take hold throughout the entirety of the planet. You would see UBI in the developed nations most likely to be hit by decreased employment in 75%-jobs-replaced scenario. Those in the developing world will have a lower proliferation of people-replacing machines (which will be costly) and a larger number of the service/manual labor jobs made redundant in the west (due to the fact that their citizens work for much lower wages and are likely to remain cost-effective for much longer, if not indefinitely). This, combined with the propensity for governments in much of the developing world to have limited competence/ability to maintain social security systems/safety nets/stable governments in general will make UBI rare outside of the west.

Well, yeah, that was my whole point earlier. The developing world are the ones seeing rapid population growth, and they're also the ones that can't support their current populations.

In a perfect world, civilizations would simply grow along with their economy.

Quote:The future you envision (should it come to pass) will see an increasingly lazy west (in which even the bulk of the middle class can be freed from work and allowed to live like a lotus-eating trustafarian) surrounded by a much poorer, harder working developing world.

Quote:You said you weren't arguing for depopulation, but this bit sounds rather sympathetic to the idea of depopulation. Am I missing something?

The point about India and the Philippines was just to illustrate my point. I'm not literally saying we should kill off half of their population.

Going back to the Singapore example, they went from a poor country to one of the richest very quickly. It would be impossible for a country like India to make such a transition, and that's mostly due to the massive difference in population. It's very, very difficult to bring that number of people out of poverty, give them jobs, provide them with necessary infrastructure, etc.

Same thing with China. They have one of the strongest economies by overall production, yet a significant portion of their population lives in extreme poverty.

Quote:Comparing the future to the past on the issue of fertility rates makes plenty of sense. Regardless of the size of any given nation, the fact remains that civilizations with long-term sub-fertility trends do not survive the duration of said trend. They are replaced. That means that if you argue in favor of said trends by supporting de-population (as I mistakenly thought you to have done earlier), you argue to the accelerated fall of the civilization at hand.

But again, no other civilization had the medical technology we have. If you have less disease and longer lifespans, it is not as necessary to reproduce just to maintain or grow population levels.

If we were to say, increase lifespan by 50%, you would see the population grow exponentially if the same reproductive rates were maintained.

Also, like I mentioned above, I'm speaking from a global perspective. I'm not suggesting that the West not add another 10, 50, 100 million people or whatever to maintain their population.

Quote:As for the more general topic of global overpopulation, we don't know what Earth's carrying capacity is. Estimates I've seen go up as high as 14 Billion now, and that could also move depending on technological advances (nevermind the potential for the addition of extra-terrestrial carrying capacity in coming decades).

Whatever the answer, odds are good that we'll live to find out. The next 50 years are going to be very interesting.

But why do you need 14 billion people?

This is the basically the crux of my argument. Just because the Earth can support 14 billion people, doesn't mean that it's ideal for the world's citizens.

The more people you have, the more problems you have. It's that simple.

You may be able to solve those problems, but it may not be necessary to create those problems in the first place.

Quote:Similarly substantial technological advances could also make higher populations less problematic than currently expected. We can't be sure of that but, again, we'll probably live to find out.

Very true, but they also make reproducing at higher rates just to maintain population less necessary.

If people are living longer, dying from disease less often, manual labor is less necessary, potential standards of living are higher, etc., then you don't need as large a population.

An easy example would be farming. In the past, we needed huge swaths of our population just to produce enough food for people to eat. Now technology has made it so that is not necessary.

We simply don't rely on people as much to keep society running. Yes, there will also be a need for people, but we're becoming increasingly self-sufficient.

In 50 or 100 years, that self-sufficiency will be even more dramatic.

Post: #24

@Snowplow

I was reffering to low income countries, but I guess that wasn't clear.

Post: #25

(01-28-2016 06:53 PM)Enigma Wrote:  But again, no other civilization had the medical technology we have. If you have less disease and longer lifespans, it is not as necessary to reproduce just to maintain or grow population levels.

Advanced medical technology and disease/early-death prevention lower the replacement rate, they do not remove it. While individuals in any given society may live longer and be far less likely to die early, they will still need a fertility rate at or above 2 to stave off population aging (and eventual decline).
In the very short-term as lifespans are increasingly rapidly, population inertia could allow the maintenance or even growth of population absent replacement-level reproduction (low fertility rates being offset by death rates temporarily at a very low level due to increasing life-span), but in the long-term that isn't sustainable. Like all creatures, humans will have to replace themselves.

Quote:If we were to say, increase lifespan by 50%, you would see the population grow exponentially if the same reproductive rates were maintained.

For a while, yes. In that scenario, very low death rates could allow low fertility rates to keep a population growing or stable.
In the longer-term, those people will still need to be replaced. Eventually, population decline and aging will take hold.

Quote:But why do you need 14 billion people?

This is the basically the crux of my argument. Just because the Earth can support 14 billion people, doesn't mean that it's ideal for the world's citizens.

We don't need 14 billion people. I never claimed we did. I did ask why it is we need to avoid population growth. Earth can support more people. That doesn't mean it MUST support more people, but it does lead me to questions lines of thought that insist we MUST decrease (or avoid increasing) the number of people on Earth.

Quote:The more people you have, the more problems you have. It's that simple.

You may be able to solve those problems, but it may not be necessary to create those problems in the first place.

The more people you have, the more problems you have...and the more people you have to solve said problems. There is upside in high population as well as a downside, just as there are upsides and downsides in lower population scenarios.

If said issues can be addressed, then what's the issue with having 14 billion people? If the problems arising from such a high population are manageable, then where is the need to go out of our way to avoid such a scenario?

Quote:Very true, but they also make reproducing at higher rates just to maintain population less necessary.

If people are living longer, dying from disease less often, manual labor is less necessary, potential standards of living are higher, etc., then you don't need as large a population.

Replacement level fertility would remain necessary. Societies cannot sustain themselves in the long-term with disproportionately old populations. The fertility rate necessary to maintain population levels will decrease (it is currently at around 2.5-3.0 in many parts of the developing world, compared to the west's 2.1) but it will still be at least 2.

Population decline would remain undesirable as it is unsustainable in the long-term, even with technological advancement. Those societies who fail to recognize this (as I suspect most of the west will) are going to learn the hard way. Their standards of living are not going to remain where they are in a long-term population aging/decline scenario. Technology will not save them from this reality.