“We have enough resources” is such a shitty god damned argument. At least you didn’t go “hurr durr everyone on the planet can fit in Manhattan if they just squeeze tightly”.
But god damned ask yourself what kind of world you want to live in, not min maxxing the number of people alive for some absolutely incomprehensible reason.
“WE CAN SQUEEZE ONE MORE IN THERE, BOYS! SHE CAN TAKE IT!”
everyone on the planet can fit in Manhattan if they just squeeze tightly
But god damned ask yourself what kind of world you want to live in, not min maxxing the number of people alive for some absolutely incomprehensible reason.
Totally with you on these points. Having lived in NYC it is my conception of ultra-urban hell. Sure, there are worse places. Cairo comes to mind. But this idea that we just have to warehouse people to keep them from having massive sprawling impact on the planet is absolutely the most wrong way to think about it, IMO. I hate when people argue that if we just tighten our belts and accept a lower standard of living, everyone can be accommodated with low environmental impact. I go the other way: if there were few enough people (and hoarding/profiteering was curtailed), beachfront and slopeside real estate would be cheap.
Not me, but I think that the fundamental argument is quality / quantity.
The quantity side aligns with capitalism and growth for the sake of growth. More consumers. More labor. Supporting the top-heavy aging populace (admittedly a problem) by whatever means necessary. Quantity is an argument favoring people not yet born, or favoring a pyramid scheme by which there needs to be an ever-expanding base of young, productive people to support the old. Nonexistent people’s “wants” should not be considered in any way. If they are not born, they can not suffer. We should not consider what hypothetical people might have wanted. The elderly need to be supported, but by some other means. We cannot continue growth forever simply to support all those who came before us.
The quality side is benefit for the existing populace. As a person who exists, it’s basically the only thing I care about. I prefer my quality of life over sacrifice for the potential existence of not-yet-existent lives. I think any sane person would want there to be more quality of life for themselves and other people living. Quantity of life directly impedes this goal.
The previous poster may not have stated the case as such, but I believe that it is self-evident.
You people, I swear. I said specifically that I’m not arguing for increased population and yet your whole response is structured like that’s exactly what I said we should do. Do you even read what you respond to or do you just scan until you find the right key word to launch into a rant?
Well if we could make everyone have a good quality of life and not destroy the environment and at the same time have more people to enjoy life and to help drive innovation and art, it would generally be for the better.
Currently a good portion of those people are barely surviving and don’t have bandwidth for art or effective innovation. But that’s not really the point. If people are happy and have a good quality of life, and there’s no negatives, then more is better because it’s more happiness.
“We have enough resources” is such a shitty god damned argument. At least you didn’t go “hurr durr everyone on the planet can fit in Manhattan if they just squeeze tightly”.
But god damned ask yourself what kind of world you want to live in, not min maxxing the number of people alive for some absolutely incomprehensible reason.
“WE CAN SQUEEZE ONE MORE IN THERE, BOYS! SHE CAN TAKE IT!”
For WHAT?! WHY?!
Totally with you on these points. Having lived in NYC it is my conception of ultra-urban hell. Sure, there are worse places. Cairo comes to mind. But this idea that we just have to warehouse people to keep them from having massive sprawling impact on the planet is absolutely the most wrong way to think about it, IMO. I hate when people argue that if we just tighten our belts and accept a lower standard of living, everyone can be accommodated with low environmental impact. I go the other way: if there were few enough people (and hoarding/profiteering was curtailed), beachfront and slopeside real estate would be cheap.
Did I miss something? You said it is a “shitty” argument, but you never state what is wrong with it.
Not me, but I think that the fundamental argument is quality / quantity.
The quantity side aligns with capitalism and growth for the sake of growth. More consumers. More labor. Supporting the top-heavy aging populace (admittedly a problem) by whatever means necessary. Quantity is an argument favoring people not yet born, or favoring a pyramid scheme by which there needs to be an ever-expanding base of young, productive people to support the old. Nonexistent people’s “wants” should not be considered in any way. If they are not born, they can not suffer. We should not consider what hypothetical people might have wanted. The elderly need to be supported, but by some other means. We cannot continue growth forever simply to support all those who came before us.
The quality side is benefit for the existing populace. As a person who exists, it’s basically the only thing I care about. I prefer my quality of life over sacrifice for the potential existence of not-yet-existent lives. I think any sane person would want there to be more quality of life for themselves and other people living. Quantity of life directly impedes this goal.
The previous poster may not have stated the case as such, but I believe that it is self-evident.
You people, I swear. I said specifically that I’m not arguing for increased population and yet your whole response is structured like that’s exactly what I said we should do. Do you even read what you respond to or do you just scan until you find the right key word to launch into a rant?
Well if we could make everyone have a good quality of life and not destroy the environment and at the same time have more people to enjoy life and to help drive innovation and art, it would generally be for the better.
I don’t think you comprehend exactly how large a number 7 billion actually is. There’s plenty of innovation and art potential already.
Currently a good portion of those people are barely surviving and don’t have bandwidth for art or effective innovation. But that’s not really the point. If people are happy and have a good quality of life, and there’s no negatives, then more is better because it’s more happiness.