Why all the population control hate?

282 posts / 0 new
Last post
plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Sep 2 2013 19:25

NIHILIST - people on here can accept that you may have concerns about insufficient resources, but this a organisation issue mate, you wont convince people here that there are too many people on the planet.
For instance, if we used middle ages technology to feed ourselves right now we all starve to death. Things have moved on; the world is much bigger place and in the west we waste and gorge ourselves daft while watching war and corruption wipe out people around the world?
If your final point is that at some point there wil be a maximum point, then maybe... But so what? Let's not start the euthanasia program quite yet. And look at it from a class point of view - personally I come from a large family and the shit you can get for this is more bourn out of class hatred than a concern for nitrous oxide.

NIHILIST
Offline
Joined: 31-08-13
Sep 2 2013 19:47
plasmatelly wrote:
NIHILIST - people on here can accept that you may have concerns about insufficient resources, but this a organisation issue mate, you wont convince people here that there are too many people on the planet.
For instance, if we used middle ages technology to feed ourselves right now we all starve to death. Things have moved on; the world is much bigger place and in the west we waste and gorge ourselves daft while watching war and corruption wipe out people around the world?
If your final point is that at some point there wil be a maximum point, then maybe... But so what? Let's not start the euthanasia program quite yet. And look at it from a class point of view - personally I come from a large family and the shit you can get for this is more bourn out of class hatred than a concern for nitrous oxide.

Well I have to agree with you. As far as euthanasia I abhor the idea, I am very much for everyones personal freedom. I definitely am not racist, or a social darwinist.
Capitalism and therefore industrialization I think are problems for the planet as a whole. I can't get around the concept that there are too many people though. I don't claim to have a solution or even the inkling of one. I think that it is a legitimate topic worthy of discourse. I don't think it is addressed properly anywhere, left or right wing philosophies to me always seem to dismiss or sidestep the very notion.

hellfrozeover
Offline
Joined: 27-07-12
Sep 2 2013 20:13

[this was supposed to have a quote as below but thanks for the up]

hellfrozeover
Offline
Joined: 27-07-12
Sep 2 2013 20:12
Quote:
Human activities account for over one-third of N2O emissions, most of which are due to the agricultural sector, I guess that is because they aren't Communists or Anarchists.

I like nitrous oxide, it makes me happy. Why are you picking on nitrous oxide?

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Sep 2 2013 20:30

NIHILIST wrote -

Quote:
Capitalism and therefore industrialization I think are problems for the planet as a whole.

Industrialisation isn't necessarily a capitalist mode of organising per se. Industrialisation is more ergonomic and less polluting than everyone going back to per-industrialisation.
Who wants to get rid of the state and markets only to find you have spend 14 hours a day in a tin pot forge making nails to repair your wigwam?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 2 2013 20:39
Quote:
Capitalism and therefore industrialization I think are problems for the planet as a whole.

Nope. Not the same.

NIHILIST
Offline
Joined: 31-08-13
Sep 2 2013 21:30
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Quote:
Capitalism and therefore industrialization I think are problems for the planet as a whole.

Nope. Not the same.

I did not mean to suggest that they were the same thing, but the "Industrial Revolution" as it has come to be called didn't come about from well meaning people but from the greed of the wealthy; it was profitable to them.
Now maybe there would be less pollution and waste under an anti-capitalist government, but would it make much of a difference to the planet's ecosystem?
Would any revolution matter to the extent that it would reverse or halt the damage that has been done?

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Sep 2 2013 22:45
Quote:
Now maybe there would be less pollution and waste under an anti-capitalist government,

i get the impershion you still dont understand who you are talking to

and the ecosystem has survived worse than us before

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Sep 2 2013 22:59

@Nihilist

This is not the SocialistWorkers forum.

Ablokeimet
Offline
Joined: 30-04-13
Sep 3 2013 12:13
NIHILIST wrote:
Human activities account for over one-third of N2O emissions, most of which are due to the agricultural sector, I guess that is because they aren't Communists or Anarchists.
It is absurd to blame everything on politics instead of just admitting there are too many of us.

NIHILIST should go back and re-read my previous post on this thread (#258). It contains some points germane to the concerns I have just quoted.

For example, re Nitrous Oxide:

Quote:
(b) Environmentally destructive activities would be ceased, because the workers performing the work involved would no longer be chained to these activities by their need for a wage.

(c) Industrial processes would be re-engineered so that necessary production could occur in non-destructive ways.

In a Libertarian Communist society, there is no technical reason why pollution has to be released to the environment. Some processes will be re-engineered to prevent the generation of toxic chemicals. Others will be engineered to ensure harmful chemicals are safely captured and then processed - often into useful products, but if not, then at least into harmless ones. And we'd have the option of deciding "Hey, this is doing too much damage, so we'll just stop". Nobody's profits would depend on harmful activities continuing, nor anybody's wages, either. We'd be able to make rational decisions without having our hand forced by blind economic compulsions.

And, on the question of whether there are "too many" people, I think that most of the evidence that is put forward today actually assumes that the structure of society has no effect. If you read Engels' book The Condition of the Working Class in England, you would see a horrendous picture of life for English workers. Much of the misery was caused by pollution: bad sewerage, occupational exposure to noxious chemicals, environmental release of industrial waste. It led to shockingly high death rates and at one stage the average life expectancy in Manchester was 19.

Things are much better for workers in England now than in the 1840s when Fred wrote his book. Was this caused by a drop in population? No. In fact, there is a higher population in England now than two centuries ago. What has changed is that the capitalist class realised that it needed to take some action. In part, it was because of working class struggle. In part, it was because the emptying of the English countryside meant that they needed the working class to be able to reproduce itself. And in part, it was because they were shocked by the performance of the English Army in Crimea, when the poor health & nutrition of the soldiers rendered the Army far less effective than Her Majesty's Government imagined it would be. As a result, modern plumbing was installed and some limits began to be put on output of noxious chemicals.

Difficulties that most people imagine is due to the numbers of people is almost always due to a technical problem of organisation that is not being fixed because the capitalists haven't seen it to be in their interests to fix it. I could go on with other examples, but I think the one will suffice.

Finally, I would like to say that I am not a believer in an ever-expanding population. In fact, I believe the population is probably already above the planet's long term carrying capacity. This limit, however, is set by the amount of renewable energy that can realistically be harvested, the amount of energy per person necessary for a civilised lifestyle, the processes which are necessary to replace (eventually) mining non-renewable deposits of minerals and such like. The existing resource base of non-renewable energy and minerals will therefore be available for use during the transitional period. We don't have anywhere near enough information to be certain about what a safe carrying capacity for our planet is, so the opinion I advanced here is actually not terribly relevant. It won't be until after the Revolution, when we can start rationally re-organising our economy, that we will be in a position to determine what energy & resource usage patterns are inherently necessary for civilisation and what are just capitalist wastefulness.

NIHILIST would be better employed joining the fight to make a workers' revolution, because it is only after the overthrow of capitalism that we will be able to address the serious questions about which he/she is concerned.

satawal
Offline
Joined: 12-05-10
Oct 18 2013 15:06

Folks following this thread may be interested in the following talk and discussion in Brighton next week.

Mon 21st October 2013, 7.30pm.
TALK + DISCUSSION.
The Population Factor
Interrelationships between human population and consumerism, wilderness, reproductive freedom, class struggle, feminism and health. Free entry.

The Cowley Club, 12 London Road, Brighton, East Sussex (Britain).
www.cowleyclub.org.uk
Brighton’s collectively owned and run libertarian social centre

Note: Just putting this on the thread as I thought it's the best way to make any in the area who look at libcom who have been following this thread know about the meeting. Not sure if this is allowed (also putting on announcements section) so ok if admins remove it from here if I have broken a posting guideline etc.