Philosophical question of the day...

[seawasp]

... how is it that there are all these people insisting that the earth is overpopulated, and people are bad for the planet? If anyone really believed that, wouldn't they already have offed themselves in order to do their share?

Comments

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Golly, that's your idea of "philosophical"? Srsly?

[seawasp]

For me, it's deep.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Why?

[seawasp]

Because I'm extremely shallow, especially when making sideline posts that are mostly for the joke value.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

That was supposed to be funny? Oh. Oh dear.

[seawasp]

Sorry it didn't work for you.

[ross-teneyck.livejournal.com]

A person can sincerely believe that there are too many people on the planet, but still advocate reducing that number solely through voluntary reductions in the birthrate. I don't see that such a person has any kind of moral duty to commit suicide.

If someone believes there are too many people on the planet and then has twelve kids, then yeah, you can call that person a hypocrite.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

For that matter there are all sorts of steps one can take to have a minimal footprint and offset what's left. And work to raise the education level of women in developing countries -- few things poleaxe a birthrate faster than raising women into the middle class.

[seawasp]

Difference between "people are the problem/killing the planet" and saying, reasonably "we should reduce our footprint". At least, to me there's a big difference.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

What is the difference?

[seawasp]

People are the problem: implies it's the existence of humanity that's the problem, not something that humanity does.

We should reduce our footprint: implies there's some behavior or set of behaviors by many or most people that should be changed.

[seawasp]

If they make a blanket statement about people being the problem, I'll still call 'em hypocrites. Especially if they're saying so posting electronically using a tremendously expensive infrastructure, etc.

They're just WORSE hypocrites if they're reproducing like rabbits.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

If they make a blanket statement about people being the problem, I'll still call 'em hypocrites.

Can you articulate your claim that they are hypocritical?

[seawasp]

People are the problem. They are part of the class of people. The only existence of people that they can reasonably control is their own. Ergo, if people really are the problem, they could either try to do the postal thing (ending of course with a suicide) or just remove themselves.

Now, if what they MEAN is that there are some behaviors of people that are the problem, that's different. But I've encountered several groups of loons that seriously seem to think that people by their existence are the Danger to the Planet. (when the planet is, of course, in no danger at all)

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

A valiant effort, I'm sure. Good luck with that 'rigor' thing.

[seawasp]

This isn't a science project. I get paid for rigor.

[amberdine.livejournal.com]

And here's me... I think more people = more awesome, and yet have no children. *shame* Maybe I can try to be awake more of the time or something. :P

(I am not being sarcastic. Possibly a bit silly.)

[seawasp]

I tend to agree myself. I've got your end of that covered, though, since I have 4 kids.

[amberdine.livejournal.com]

Awesome. Thanks! :D

[anghara.livejournal.com]

I just wrote a long reply to this and erased it. Never mind.

[redrose999.livejournal.com]

The problem is, if people admit that HUMAN BEHAVIOR is the problem, they would have to OWN some of the behavior that contributes to the problem. To blame it on people and over population, it focuses on one kind of situation, and takes away the ownership of what's causing the problem.

People, even radical LW environmental people want to believe THEY are doing the right thing and blaming it on over population and other people because they're doing the "right thing" (recycling, not breeding, paying into nature funds and protection groups, ramming Japanese whalers, turning out lights etc).

They live with themselves better. But the truth is, the very fact we eat, crap, interact with each other, and have any kind of technology creates a "carbon" print. Even the most environmentally conscious people leave a print by existing, even if they are "responsible" for the "green things" they can do, you can't do everything if you are to survive in this world.

It's all psychology. I have four kids, I live in the winter as you know with the heat and power off. I also try to recycle. I believe in protecting the world and I garden. I try to conserve energy, but I have a car, I cook meals, and I can't afford some of the greenstuff because it is 10 times more expensive. I think the attitude of people all depends on how angry they are too. Because the truth is, your own existence is a problem,you need to put it on someone else to make yourself feel better. So it makes you helpless. It's better to make someone else a villain than face the cold hard truth.

[ross-teneyck.livejournal.com]

The other version of "Too many people!" you see -- although you often have to poke them a little, because they're usually a little cagey about coming right out and saying it -- is the one that really means, "Too many of the wrong kind of people!" Popular indicators of wrongness include "incorrect skin color," "incorrect national origin," "incorrect faction adherence," and, "incorrect religion." Or all of them at once.

In which case, since the speaker is obviously one of the right kind of people, offing themselves would be counterproductive.

[xpioti.livejournal.com]

Of course they haven't offed themselves, that would be an offense against their beliefs! It's everybody else who should off themselves! You know, the useless ones who do all the work instead of complaining all the time?

Actually, one viewpoint that's always intrigued me, especially once I discovered that it'd been spoon-fed to me, is the viewpoint that people in developing countries would do better if they had fewer children. When I realized that they have 15 children in the hopes of having 7 reach adulthood and 2 or 3 actually reproducing (numbers pulled randomly out of the air), it kinda changed my perspective. :)

[seawasp]

Well, the single biggest factors in reducing birthrates are still (1) having birth control available, and (2) women being allowed to decide to take advantage of it.Yes, this could be disastrous in a setting where, otherwise, you remained at the level where many children die very young and manual labor is the primary employment, etc., but in general these things happen when the country has started to go up the higher tech curve.

[keithmm.livejournal.com]

As bad as this is to say, there's a corrective mechanism to deal the disasterous setting. Well, two, actually. The first is that someone else without said problems moves in and takes up the unused resources. The other, traditional, method is to ensure that women have less say in the matter.

[tekalynn.livejournal.com]

I've considered that, actually, though more as an intellectual exercise. My excuse is that a) there are people who rely on me and will miss me, and b) I'll be dead sooner or later *anyway*.

[nordhus.livejournal.com]

You were looking for these guys? (http://www.vhemt.org/)

[kira-snugz.livejournal.com]

lol, if only. i try to be as green as possible, (cheaply) have plans of retiring to a small farm and building my own green home. i'm raising my kid to understand the theres only so much resources.

[gary-jordan.livejournal.com]

That's your idea of a philosophical question?

Pshaw, I say! Pshaw! Yesterday, Monday 4/26/10, was Boobquake Day. (Google it.) http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/in-name-of-science-i-offer-my-boobs.html

I suppose the Ayatollah was right. 200,000 women dressed "as immodestly as they felt comfortable with" and there was a 6.5 quake near tit-tit-tit-Taiwan.

Anyway, my philosophical question is, "If a woman shows some cleavage in a forest and no man (or lesbian or bi-curious woman or Ayatollah) is there to see, does it still cause an Earthquake?"

[seawasp]

Ahh, thank you for keeping me abreast of such developments.

According to the theory, God/Allah is able to see everything, so presumably the answer would be "yes".

Your Question

[saintonge.livejournal.com]

You are an evil person who is guilty of thoughtcrime for asking such things. The kind of person who thinks there are too many people is obviously part of the solution. It's the others who are the problem, and people like you who ask such questions are especially the problem and have to die first.