Why all the population control hate?

282 posts / 0 new
Last post
devoration1's picture
devoration1
Offline
Joined: 18-07-10
Jul 9 2011 04:07
Quote:
To suggest it's the best lense to use, in every situation, is silly dogmatism that I won't even bother responding to.
.

Because it would be silly to recognize the spider-web of relevance between the social issues you mention and class society? I don't understand this viewpoint. Is class just another social problem on a long list (race, gender, environment, etc)- no more or less important in your opinion?

batswill
Offline
Joined: 8-07-11
Jul 9 2011 04:09

And I must add, that if the total global wealth and labor had been directed towards housing, permaculture, family planning, education and sustainable energy systems instead of being hijacked by the capitalist military/industrial complex, we wouldn't be having this debate now.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Jul 9 2011 06:47
batswill wrote:
I think LBird that you misinterpreted my statement out of context, I was referring to the present capitalist dominated global scenario.

Well, I haven't 'misinterpeted' your statement, I've interpreted the words themselves:

batswill wrote:
I think that ' isms ' or ethics are irrelevant, and our present condition is unavoidable. We are what we are, glorified animals mostly devoid of voluntary cognition, apt to behave like homicidal chimps at the first offerings of reward, glory or status.

However, if you 'misplaced' some 'capitalist context', then it's no wonder your words are taken at face value. But, in the statement above, a 'capitalist context' would have made nonsense of the statement itself, with its terms 'irrelevant', 'unavoidable', 'mostly devoid' and 'apt to behave'.

You've made some posts since which seem to suggest that you are some sort of Communist, but I still think that your first post on this thread was seriously mistaken. 'Isms' are not irrelevant to us, or we wouldn't call ourselves 'Communists'; 'our present condition' is entirely 'avoidable'; humans certainly are not 'glorified animals mostly devoid of voluntary cognition'; and human history teaches us that 'behaving like homicidal chimps' is socially-learnt behaviour (First World War?), the product of class society (it's hard to believe that the millions of deaths in wars are caused by chimp-like behaviour, and not brain-washing nationalism and economic turmoil); and humans are driven by many things other than 'reward, glory or status', which are learnt aims for (sad) individuals, rather than communal aims.

There's not much 'reward, glory or status' for all of us who spend hours on Libcom!

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Jul 9 2011 06:51
devoration1 wrote:
Is class just another social problem on a long list (race, gender, environment, etc)- no more or less important in your opinion?

One needn't think that if they think class isn't the end all, be all. But that seems like a separate conversation for a separate thread

batswill
Offline
Joined: 8-07-11
Jul 9 2011 07:31

You've made some posts since which seem to suggest that you are some sort of Communist, but I still think that your first post on this thread was seriously mistaken. 'Isms' are not irrelevant to us, or we wouldn't call ourselves 'Communists'; 'our present condition' is entirely 'avoidable'; humans certainly are not 'glorified animals mostly devoid of voluntary cognition'; and human history teaches us that 'behaving like homicidal chimps' is socially-learnt behaviour (First World War?), the product of class society (it's hard to believe that the millions of deaths in wars are caused by chimp-like behaviour, and not brain-washing nationalism and economic turmoil); and humans are driven by many things other than 'reward, glory or status', which are learnt aims for (sad) individuals, rather than communal aims.

Libcom!

OK, In my exuberance on becoming a newbie, I admit I was excessive with misplaced adjectives, and that I offered a rather primitive analysis of social drives, nevertheless, I hold to my statement that Marx himself would roll in his grave if he new that an 'ism ' had been added to his name.
" ,,,some sort of Communist " I certainly am, maybe of the individualist type, therefore able to live the doctrine in a more purist sense, which is very difficult sometimes, but at least not adding to the population, producing only one cherished offspring, who I have lectured to about population, division of labor, and the selective mechanisms that class society presents to those of underprivileged origins.

batswill
Offline
Joined: 8-07-11
Jul 9 2011 07:46

Anyway, I don't go for any restraints or laws that deny emotional expression and any biological processes that occur as a result. But this is at the terminal stage of a system of communal awareness and an appraisal of the sustainability of certain practices. Foremost I feel that a collective spirit is nurtured within the children that will be a self-perpetuating ethic that eventually rids this world of its corrupt entities.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jul 9 2011 07:59

individualist communist?

A collective spirit in children won't overcome capitalism, it will have to be the collective action of the class to take over the means of production. Your explanation above seems very moralistic and disregards the the power relationships the underpin capitalistic social relations.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Jul 9 2011 08:04
batswill wrote:
OK, In my exuberance on becoming a newbie, I admit I was excessive with misplaced adjectives, and that I offered a rather primitive analysis of social drives,...

Thanks, batswill, for your comradely concession. It's important that we all discuss these issues, because if what you said hadn't been challenged, then other 'newbies' might have taken those statements at face value, with them not having your deeper understanding of the 'capitalist context', which you had left unspoken.

batswill wrote:
...nevertheless, I hold to my statement that Marx himself would roll in his grave if he new that an 'ism ' had been added to his name.

Yes, I concur! I think that instead he'd rather enjoy himself and Engels being referred to as 'Charlie and Fred', in the proletarian manner!

batswill wrote:
"...some sort of Communist " I certainly am, maybe of the individualist type, therefore able to live the doctrine in a more purist sense...

Ahhhhh..... now we're entering more disagreeable territory...

The 'individualist type'? Isn't this a contradiction with being a Communist? Surely we should identify, in a political sense, as 'workers' or 'proletarians'? 'Individualism' is a product of bourgeois thought. We are all products of a society. The dominant ideology in capitalism is 'we're all individuals'. But is this true, in any political (as opposed to 'biological') sense?

batswill wrote:
...therefore able to live the doctrine in a more purist sense...

But Communism is a social act, not the act of an individual, whether 'pure' or not. One can't live as a Communist, only society can be Communist.

batswill wrote:
...but at least not adding to the population, producing only one cherished offspring, who I have lectured to about population,...

What's the problem with 'adding to the population'? Why lecture to your impressionable child about 'population being a problem'? Will your child then see 'population as a problem' because they've thought it up as an 'individual', or because they've learnt it from society (ie., you)?

And isn't this where we all came in, with the OP?

Aflwydd
Offline
Joined: 22-05-11
Jul 9 2011 10:05
Tojiah wrote:
Aflwydd wrote:
As Libertarian Communists, we have to make sure that we don't look for scapegoats when we all know what the real problem is.

I don't see how saying that there are too many people is looking for scapegoats. On the face of it it's a very equal-opportunity statement.

Blaming the economic situation on the amount of people on the earth can definitely be considered to be looking for a scapegoat. Actually, it's the opposite. Blaming the entire population for the crimes of a minority.

yoda's walking stick
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
Jul 9 2011 12:07
devoration1 wrote:
Quote:
To suggest it's the best lense to use, in every situation, is silly dogmatism that I won't even bother responding to.
.

Because it would be silly to recognize the spider-web of relevance between the social issues you mention and class society? I don't understand this viewpoint. Is class just another social problem on a long list (race, gender, environment, etc)- no more or less important in your opinion?

Dear Dogmatron,

I don't think such ranking of oppressions is helpful at all. In fact, it's down right counterproductive, in my opinion.

EDIT: If your quotation from me wasn't so chopped. and you'd bothered reading my entire post, you'd see that I acknowledged this "spider-web of relevance" as you call it.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jul 9 2011 12:18

"Dogmatron", wow, never confuse those who lack an argument with those who can come up with biting, witty insults.

communal_pie's picture
communal_pie
Offline
Joined: 18-10-08
Jul 9 2011 14:42

Some Victorian economists called unemployment 'overpopulation', surely that gives you some quick insight into how utterly moronic the entire idea is in its very first instance.

yoda's walking stick
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
Jul 9 2011 15:10
communal_pie wrote:
Some Victorian economists called unemployment 'overpopulation', surely that gives you some quick insight into how utterly moronic the entire idea is in its very first instance.

But if you take Marx's idea of the industrial reserve army seriously, overpopulation, and the unemployment it might entail, is a good thing from the bourgeois perspective, so long as it doesn't create unrest that threatens the system, right?

batswill
Offline
Joined: 8-07-11
Jul 9 2011 15:50
Chilli Sauce wrote:
individualist communist?

A collective spirit in children won't overcome capitalism, it will have to be the collective action of the class to take over the means of production. Your explanation above seems very moralistic and disregards the the power relationships the underpin capitalistic social relations.

But the collective action of the class has to be empowered to take over the means of production. How is power, as knowledge of social mechanisms and their outcomes going to be learned? Certainly not in State schools. I feel that these ideas have to be introduced into the perceptions at the 'identity stage' of adolescents so that they are not overwhelmed by either religious or capitalist symbols.
I've no complex about morals, I'm not an anarchist smile

batswill
Offline
Joined: 8-07-11
Jul 9 2011 16:39
LBird wrote:
batswill wrote:
OK, In my exuberance on becoming a newbie, I admit I was excessive with misplaced adjectives, and that I offered a rather primitive analysis of social drives,...

Thanks, batswill, for your comradely concession. It's important that we all discuss these issues, because if what you said hadn't been challenged, then other 'newbies' might have taken those statements at face value, with them not having your deeper understanding of the 'capitalist context', which you had left unspoken.

batswill wrote:
...nevertheless, I hold to my statement that Marx himself would roll in his grave if he new that an 'ism ' had been added to his name.

Yes, I concur! I think that instead he'd rather enjoy himself and Engels being referred to as 'Charlie and Fred', in the proletarian manner!

batswill wrote:
"...some sort of Communist " I certainly am, maybe of the individualist type, therefore able to live the doctrine in a more purist sense...

Ahhhhh..... now we're entering more disagreeable territory...

The 'individualist type'? Isn't this a contradiction with being a Communist? Surely we should identify, in a political sense, as 'workers' or 'proletarians'? 'Individualism' is a product of bourgeois thought. We are all products of a society. The dominant ideology in capitalism is 'we're all individuals'. But is this true, in any political (as opposed to 'biological') sense?

batswill wrote:
...therefore able to live the doctrine in a more purist sense...

But Communism is a social act, not the act of an individual, whether 'pure' or not. One can't live as a Communist, only society can be Communist.

batswill wrote:
...but at least not adding to the population, producing only one cherished offspring, who I have lectured to about population,...

What's the problem with 'adding to the population'? Why lecture to your impressionable child about 'population being a problem'? Will your child then see 'population as a problem' because they've thought it up as an 'individual', or because they've learnt it from society (ie., you)?

And isn't this where we all came in, with the OP?

You've really enlightened me to some of my own in-bred rhetoric, of how parochial social processes and dynamics from within a cocoon can make the analysis of more complex issues resemble a format of ones own routism.
My hope is that capitalism, like smallpox, is curable. John D Haymaker, from the biological population perspective feels that all is lost for civilization. But are these not apocalyptic musings that mirror some archaic primeval paranoia, collective sentiments that fomented and evolved into eschatological doctrines and desires that created an urgency and state of unrest, as may be similar to the behavior of animals sensing their slaughter. I also am so sad about the condition of this Earth, we need more like you. smile

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jul 9 2011 17:19
Chilli Sauce wrote:
I mean, it's not mine either. I quite like beer, skateboarding, my partner, and cooking (EDIT: not necessarily in that order!) . However, when it comes to politics, it's always a matter of economics which means its always a matter of class.

BAN!

Seriously, as has been said, 'overpopulation' is a product of economics in most cases. It is an unproductive (and therefore non-profitable) surplus and like most surpluses in capital simply requires a market in which it can be invested (say the US in the 19th/20th century). There is probably an absolute maximum that the planet can support, but we're a long way from finding out what that is. There might also be a maximum in terms of quality of life, but again we're far rom knowing what that is, or even what level might be acceptable to start the calculations.
Population control is imposed, the idea that anarchism would lead to rampant unchecked population growth seems to me to be a bit like the individualist arguments about anarchism (but everybody would just be killing each other without rules) people would control themselves. Also the cultural and economic pressures to have children would fade away. I think widespread contraception would also have a massive effect. Overpopulation is useful to the bourgeois, in the same way as unemployment is useful, which might explain the attitude towards contraception. But I think I'm getting off topic.
Population control is also frowned upon on these boards because it is often connected to the openly misanthropic, hypocritical and poorly thought out ideas of primitivists. In the same way as I refuse to accept a view of human nature that says we cannot be decent to each other without police I also refuse to accept that we cannot find a way of coping with problems caused by increasing population size without resorting to imposing controls, althoughh I'm not ruling it out.

yoda's walking stick
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
Jul 9 2011 17:29

I guess I think there is a limited degree of space, that building new human habitations requires the destruction of natural habitats, and that amounts to an ecological imperialism of sorts. I don't think humans have a greater "right" to be here than other animals. Take that as you may. No doubt it will be interpreted as misanthropic.

I just don't really understand what the upside of having more humans at this point could possibly be.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Jul 9 2011 19:13
yoda's walking stick wrote:
I just don't really understand what the upside of having more humans at this point could possibly be.

It all depends whether you regard the addition of another human as an 'upside' or a 'downside'.

And this judgement is a judgement made by a socio-economic system, not individuals.

If a human, giving all due consideration to the environment, produces more than they consume (both in the widest sense), then more humans means more wealth.

If a human, giving all due consideration to the environment, consumes more than they produce (both in the widest sense), then more humans means less wealth.

If we have a society which allows humans to out-produce their consumption, then 'the more the merrier'.

The earth isn't a finite 'natural' resource: we're nature's consciousness, we are the earth thinking. Of course, just like blind, wider nature itself, 'natural humans' can destroy the planet. But higher population numbers won't necessarily be the cause of that destruction: a social system might be, though.

Our collective problem is capitalism, not numbers.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jul 9 2011 19:17
LBird wrote:
The earth isn't a finite 'natural' resource: we're nature's consciousness, we are the earth thinking. Of course, just like blind, wider nature itself, 'natural humans' can destroy the planet. But higher population numbers won't necessarily be the cause of that destruction: a social system might be, though.

That's really well put LBird!

batswill
Offline
Joined: 8-07-11
Jul 9 2011 19:39
yoda's walking stick wrote:
I guess I think there is a limited degree of space, that building new human habitations requires the destruction of natural habitats, and that amounts to an ecological imperialism of sorts. I don't think humans have a greater "right" to be here than other animals. Take that as you may. No doubt it will be interpreted as misanthropic.

I just don't really understand what the upside of having more humans at this point could possibly be.

I just know I'm going to get flak for what I'm about to say. Existing is depletion of energies and materials, but as in a mixing-pot of organic desires, a population arises and is comprised of caring individual in a collective biological contract that IS social life. Until the last of a species crawls to its demise in the ashes and wreckage of its own creation, it will still be worthy of respect, and should never be deprived of its potentiality.. None of us are innocent of this global fiasco, save the innocent children, lions, eagles, whales, etc . If we all had a perception of environmental sustainability, what makes that particular awareness have a capability to alter the desires of those inhabiting the Chinese/Indian region, which as Hamaker explains has regional glacial fertility. It is only the manipulation of populations by colonialists, or the tangential manipulation by them to, in the early 20th century, develope machinery and medicines that prolonged and extended the workability of its servants so that they are in numbers capable of providing the labor for the factories tjey own.

communal_pie's picture
communal_pie
Offline
Joined: 18-10-08
Jul 9 2011 19:41
yoda's walking stick wrote:
communal_pie wrote:
Some Victorian economists called unemployment 'overpopulation', surely that gives you some quick insight into how utterly moronic the entire idea is in its very first instance.

But if you take Marx's idea of the industrial reserve army seriously, overpopulation, and the unemployment it might entail, is a good thing from the bourgeois perspective, so long as it doesn't create unrest that threatens the system, right?

If you take Victorian economics seriously there is something wrong with you, do you honestly believe Victorian Britain was overpopulated?

It's clear that your belief that the world is overcrowded fuels your absurd idea. Do you know that most of the world's population is concentrated in a few, small areas?

yoda's walking stick
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
Jul 9 2011 20:03
communal_pie wrote:
yoda's walking stick wrote:
communal_pie wrote:
Some Victorian economists called unemployment 'overpopulation', surely that gives you some quick insight into how utterly moronic the entire idea is in its very first instance.

But if you take Marx's idea of the industrial reserve army seriously, overpopulation, and the unemployment it might entail, is a good thing from the bourgeois perspective, so long as it doesn't create unrest that threatens the system, right?

If you take Victorian economics seriously there is something wrong with you, do you honestly believe Victorian Britain was overpopulated?

It's clear that your belief that the world is overcrowded fuels your absurd idea. Do you know that most of the world's population is concentrated in a few, small areas?

Dear patronizer,

Yeah, I can't believe no one's colonized Antarctica yet! Talk about cheap rent. And all those "unused" forests - we could just bulldoze those for condominium space. I can't believe I hadn't thought of that yet!

communal_pie's picture
communal_pie
Offline
Joined: 18-10-08
Jul 9 2011 20:06

Or you could ride through your own country's countryside one day and look upon the miles and miles of unused space nowhere near forests or anything like that?

You aren't Canadian are you?

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Jul 9 2011 20:34
yoda's walking stick wrote:
communal_pie wrote:
yoda's walking stick wrote:
communal_pie wrote:
Some Victorian economists called unemployment 'overpopulation', surely that gives you some quick insight into how utterly moronic the entire idea is in its very first instance.

But if you take Marx's idea of the industrial reserve army seriously, overpopulation, and the unemployment it might entail, is a good thing from the bourgeois perspective, so long as it doesn't create unrest that threatens the system, right?

If you take Victorian economics seriously there is something wrong with you, do you honestly believe Victorian Britain was overpopulated?

It's clear that your belief that the world is overcrowded fuels your absurd idea. Do you know that most of the world's population is concentrated in a few, small areas?

Dear patronizer,

Yeah, I can't believe no one's colonized Antarctica yet! Talk about cheap rent. And all those "unused" forests - we could just bulldoze those for condominium space. I can't believe I hadn't thought of that yet!

if the uk was over populated in the 19th century what is it now?

this has some dater on population in the uk, but it divides it by the individual countries that make up the uk, never the less you can clearly see that the population now it nearly double what it was at the end of the 19th century, so could you explain how it was over populated then but apparently we are ok now? or did some catastrophe happen that i didn't notice?

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/fom2005/01_FOPM_Population.pdf

yoda's walking stick
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
Jul 9 2011 21:51
radicalgraffiti wrote:
yoda's walking stick wrote:
communal_pie wrote:
yoda's walking stick wrote:
communal_pie wrote:
Some Victorian economists called unemployment 'overpopulation', surely that gives you some quick insight into how utterly moronic the entire idea is in its very first instance.

But if you take Marx's idea of the industrial reserve army seriously, overpopulation, and the unemployment it might entail, is a good thing from the bourgeois perspective, so long as it doesn't create unrest that threatens the system, right?

If you take Victorian economics seriously there is something wrong with you, do you honestly believe Victorian Britain was overpopulated?

It's clear that your belief that the world is overcrowded fuels your absurd idea. Do you know that most of the world's population is concentrated in a few, small areas?

Dear patronizer,

Yeah, I can't believe no one's colonized Antarctica yet! Talk about cheap rent. And all those "unused" forests - we could just bulldoze those for condominium space. I can't believe I hadn't thought of that yet!

if the uk was over populated in the 19th century what is it now?

this has some dater on population in the uk, but it divides it by the individual countries that make up the uk, never the less you can clearly see that the population now it nearly double what it was at the end of the 19th century, so could you explain how it was over populated then but apparently we are ok now? or did some catastrophe happen that i didn't notice?

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/fom2005/01_FOPM_Population.pdf

Where is this straw man coming from? Where did I say England, of all countries, was overpopulated in the 19th century, of all times? Is it that you folks are merely parroting Marx's critique of Malthus? I mean honestly, I don't even care what you're opinion is, although I am interested hear it, but can't it at least be original?

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Jul 10 2011 01:39

just because this debate seems to haven gotten a bit stale and boring with people trolling one and other (calling people 'patronizer'), rather than actually engaging in a debate*, I think we should start from the beginning^. What constitutes the problem of so called 'over population'. Who, What, When and How do we decided that there is an over population problem?

Yoda, I don't think anybody is 'parroting' Marx here, he offers a better explanatory framework, and as I said in the last post, Malthus, byhis own predictions was wrong. It's not a case of parroting, the theory is shit....

*A debate I would say that was well and truly closed after the first like, 10 posts?

^ As I feel we have taken the so called 'Malthusians' on their own grounds.

yoda's walking stick
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
Jul 10 2011 01:44

I really wasn't trying to take a position in the this thread. I was taking issue with what I saw as unoriginal analysis.

Not that I'm Affleck or the other actor in this situation.

Zanthorus's picture
Zanthorus
Offline
Joined: 3-08-10
Jul 10 2011 02:02
yoda's walking stick wrote:
I mean honestly, I don't even care what you're opinion is, although I am interested hear it, but can't it at least be original?

Why is the originality of someone's opinion important though? Surely for any given question there can only possibly one answer which is completely correct, and once that answer is given anyone attempting to given an 'original' answer to the question is going to be worse than someone who sticks to the unoriginal yet correct answer.

yoda's walking stick
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
Jul 10 2011 02:30
Zanthorus wrote:
yoda's walking stick wrote:
I mean honestly, I don't even care what you're opinion is, although I am interested hear it, but can't it at least be original?

Why is the originality of someone's opinion important though? Surely for any given question there can only possibly one answer which is completely correct, and once that answer is given anyone attempting to given an 'original' answer to the question is going to be worse than someone who sticks to the unoriginal yet correct answer.

Oh, you're welcome to stick to Marx's position vis a vis Malthus. I was just hoping that posters taking that route might do more than paraphrase weakly. Make it fresh, relevant, your own. Or don't. I guess it really doesn't matter.

jonglier's picture
jonglier
Offline
Joined: 6-12-10
Jul 10 2011 08:28

Massive respect to everyone in this thread who have kept cool headed and willing to debate with an interlocutor as petulant, wilfully uncooperative, and unwilling to actually think issues through, as yoda's walking stick has been.

I don't think that's flaming, I think that's an honest observation.