Firstly, there is an extremely large difference between "distributed" and "regulated." Secondly, maybe our standards of living are too high? (I think they are.) Thirdly, as long as we have the bare minimum to produce trees and provide for our basic construction needs, there is no need for any more. While trees and biodiversity are nice things to have (I like them), this cultish obsession with preserving them as technology slowly makes them obsolete is silly. The world is only to be preserved insofar as we need it. If we come to a point where trees are no longer necessary, it would not be bad in and of itself to cut them all down. (Obviously, we are not at that place yet.) You are letting your aesthetic preferences cloud your judgment. I am not concerned with human comfort primarily. I am mainly concerned with human survival, in this conversation. (I obviously think there are things much more important than human survival.)
I mean idk about y’all but I’m pretty sure if the population of humans were to go down by one of those billions, the world would be getting covered by us and destroyed by us a lot slower lmao
Interesting, but this is coming from the perspective of what WE need. Perhaps we don’t need that many trees but the benefits are endless. Example: my town had a TERRIBLE flood, a dealership lost 60+ cars because they all floated away and crashed into each other, several basements flooded, Party City lost a ton of items coz it just floated away. Damage+$$$ lost was a lot in general. Guess where I live? New Jersey Trees+grass soak up water. Also trees=oxygen. Masks have become a fashion statement not without reason, the air in a lot of Asian countries are filthy. Even NYC has filthy air, you blow your nose after a sightseeing trip and your snot is grey not green. Cutting down other species habitats needlessly is stupid. America or wherever you’re from may not be overpopulated but the world is indeed overpopulated. The average family size in some African countries are well over 5 or 6(idk exact number) because few make it to adulthood due to malnourishment, etc. Yes education and distribution of food would help but that’s not going to happen. Kids -MGMT: Control yourself, take only what you need from it. A family of treeees crying
Firstly, I never advocated for education. Secondly, I have only ever advocated a "course of need," so to speak, in this conversation. If God or the Patriarch of Constantinople or the Pope of Rome or someone else came to me and said, "You are Emperor! Organize the world as you see fit!" I would, of course, implement pro-environmental policies (as long as they do not harm small-scale agriculture). I would, of course, save trees. I would reverse the "progress" of technology and usher in nep-feudalism! But as the world is (and will be), the consequences of our actions will not lead to the unfulfillment of human needs, at least over the long run. We are not overpopulated in any meaningful sense. When we reach that point, Nature will solve the problem for us. Also, I am happy people have large families. It is the right thing to do. Under a strict, worldwide regime, we could probably support one hundred billion people if we utilized all possible farmlands, packed people in high-rises, embraced automation, and limited people to 2000 calories or less a day. Would it be miserable? Yes. Would it be unjust? Yes. But would it work, even after the actions you urge us not to commit? Yes. If you would just make an intellectually honest claim, I might agree with you.
Personally, I support localized economic and environmental regulations which help small businesses and small farmers.
What you said has almost no correlation with what I said about floods and the importance of nature/trees. I like that you think you could play a great God, except that won’t happen. The “world” as a whole may not be overpopulated but certain places ARE. So why does it matter if people keep having more babies they can’t support?? Average household size in certain African countries are big like I said, and having more babies doesn’t help, one bit. It just means more underfed and underprivileged children. If you could properly distribute food GLOBALLY, then increasing the amount of people on earth may be okay but we can’t. The state we’re at is not enough for more humans to live on earth peacefully. Your country may be fine, others not. I lived in China for 5 years and I don’t feel like getting in-depth but yeah.
Also about the utopia that you said, it will maximize the human population but there’s not much point to it. Humans aren’t that great in case you haven’t seen enough to figure that out. What is the purpose of maximizing the human population?
I did not address it because I do not care to address it. Trees could be replaced with crops, et cetera. As far as family size, I think it is wonderful that those people are reproducing, even if they cannot support their offspring. The main purpose of life is to make more life, even if that life will be miserable and die prematurely. They choose reproduction over abstinence; I respect them as people and applaud their good decision. Hopefully, they will be rewarded for their heroic act.
The purpose would be to maximize the human population, if such a course was followed. Humanity, even if depraved, is still a good in-and-of-itself. And I never described that system as a utopia. It would be dystopian. Feudalism is the best system man has ever lived under.
Now-feudalism/Distributism could probably feed 30 billion people, id implemented in every country. This is just my guess. Nature would take care of the surplus, as she should.
No, you’re gross, stop it. You expect parents everywhere to pop out babies like no tomorrow knowing the kid is going to suffer and die, over and over? All because you want people to keep making life, just for it to die right after? Just for those children to take up necessities, which is causing even more suffering for everyone involved, and then die soon after? Nah. Get the shit outta here. Lmao, “life is a game”? You don’t play life, fam
Sorry. I was being flippant when I made the game comment. Of course, these deaths would be tragic, but it is the Natural Law at work. Just as Smith warned us not to interfere with the Invisible Hand, I warn you all to not interfere with the Natural Law. (I say the following as a non-Roman Catholic.) The Protestant Reformation truly harmed Civilization by undermining (and, in England, destroying) the Roman Catholic institutions which supported celibacy (such as the monasteries). This class of people who did not reproduce helped control population inadvertently and enriched society. Once society is righted, we would need some form of monastic or similar organization to encourage a segment of the population to remain celibate and enrich the culture/do higher things.
@Warmth They could be celibate. Life is valuable in-and-of-itself. If you are going to marry, you should have as many children as you can. Marriage is solely for producing legitimate children. However, the game statement was wrong. I will not leave, and I find your distaste for the poor reproducing to be a symptom of a neo-eugenic mindset.