Funny how people who think the earth overpopulated always think is other people who are overpopulating it, and not themselves.
Wealth can be created. There's no limit to how much wealth can be created. Focusing on deleting the population is immoral.
Wealth can be created. There's no limit to how much wealth can be created. Focusing on deleting the population is immoral.
Besides, morality is highly subjective.
Traditionally wealth means stuff or ability to acquire stuff, which inherently consumes resources. I'm assuming you are referring to a reinterpretation of the term "wealth" to mean "a number in a computer system"?
That can be software so yes, given that software can be created without limits and that software wealth creation is a subset of total wealth creation that alone is proof that wealth creation is unlimited.
However if you think material resources is the limiting factor then you're going to have to explain exactly what is going to stop scientists from developing new materials that can be used in new products or in existing products.
It's completely sane to think and discuss how we can in someway "delete" population.
It is immoral to think the world would be better with fewer people because what you're really saying is, 3 Billion people or whatever number shouldn't exist. If you think not existing is a good thing then we wouldn't be having this conversation would we?
No matter how you paint it, you think it is a good thing for you to exist but not others.
"Balance of health, nature and economics" nice words for basically "I want fewer poor people in the world so let's help them sterilize themselves" instead of creating wealth which isn't inherently immoral and would actually have a positive impact if done rightly
From there on out, we're depleting the Earth's reserves - some of which can never come back.
This is, in my view, immoral. That's how I view things without giving back.
Your comments seem to try to twist the arguments into some sort of Thanos-snap, as if certain currently living people do not have a right to live. That is a strawman, no one is arguing that.
The reality is that if you go back far enough your ancestors were poor by modern standards, and if someone have done what you want to do to the poor today you wouldn't exist.
It is immoral to want for others what you don't want for yourself
The observation is that a given population and affluence level cannot sustainably exist. Not as a matter of morality or prescription, but as a simple matter of fact. The concept of overshoot, well established in ecology, is one that specifically notes that populations can for a finite period of time, exceed long-term carrying capacity, but will in time collapse. Overshoot itself --- population in excess of sustainable capacity --- occurs because of lag effects. Consequences of actions follow those actions, but not necessarily immediately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population)
Population dynamics, like diseases, don't distinguish on ethnicity, religioun, ancestry, or ideology. It is true that the poor tend to bear the brunt more heavily. I ascribe no moral justification to this, though theological and ideological doctrines of the past and present very frequently do, to their discredit.
Respondind that a fact may be legitimately rejected simply because its implications are too painful to consider is wishful thinking, the informal fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam appeal to consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
What you are saying is ... well, Col. Jessup had something to say on that:
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo
Adding to that error, you then invent the utterly unsupported claim that those making the case for overpopulation mean for any reduction measures to only apply to others. This is in fact entirely a fiction of your own creation in this discussion. It does of course make answering the claim all the more difficult. I point out that as a fabulous claim there is no need to do so.
As I've noted before in this thread, you seem bent on repeatedly dragging this discussion into moral territory, in a manner which makes substantial and productive discussion difficult. It would benefit the discussion, and you might learn something, were you to not do so.
You should be able to defend a position that other people think is immoral specially if you think is morally good.
The Wikipedia link and theory is based on a computer model. No model can predict future innovation because part of future innovation is non linear and hence unpredictable utilizing current trends.
So you have something you can't predict (future innovation and how that will affect energy and new materials).
The burden of proof is on you given that you want to do something unnatural and immoral: make sterile millions of people.
If you want to sterilize yourself I don't agree with it but I cant stop you but that's not enough for you folks, you presume you have the right to promote mass sterilization so yes I'm going to say it for what it is: immoral.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28904716
You're also showing a pattern of deflecting and projecting rather than addressing the specific issues addressed by others.
On Wikipedia: I link to it as a general reference. Again, there is a long and large literature, the article is just one of numerous jumping-off points. There are others, such as Google Scholar:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=population%20overshoot&...
Arguing based on unknowables ("future innovation is non linear and hence unpredictable utilizing current trends") is literally an appeal to ignorance. Arguing from the point that a premise is unknown and unknowable does not prove conclusions premised on that premise being true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
As an alternative to the hivemind, Locke: https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/439/locke0417.htm
You are putting words in my mouth regarding what you're again fabricating as another's argument. I said no such thing, that is again your fiction. I'll merely respond that in advocating unsustainable population overshoot that you are committing many billions to lives of poverty and misery. And committing the fallacy of composition to boot.
Burden of proof relates to factual claims, not moral ones. Those are ultimately goverened by the is-ought relation.
And if you'll read elsewhere in this thread, I've actually already addressed your specious and repeated question:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28904666
Again, I await your answer to my first question, though with low expectations.
Serious question: Are you commenting to try to better understand a question and viewpoints about it, or only to promote your own views and cast aspersions? Because your comments strongly suggest the latter.
Citation requested.
That, and other statements of your comment, are articles of ideology and belief, not scientific statements. You're attempting to moralise what is a factual matter. That is as effective as a moral theory of disease, which is to say, not at all.
I said it is immoral and that we have moral options that work. Or you think wealth can not be created?
Apparently you have none, as I suspected.
The issue is not with the population but the few who ruin everything for everyone.
I would assume that most of these kinds of folks would be childless?