ZPG. Food Crisis. Discussion please.

College Confidential Community
1

<p>[I'd like to interchange "grain" and "food" below because my argument, in most cases, extends to many foods, although the crowning matter of fact is based in grain.]</p>

<p>It interests me that some people take the price of grain as a surprise. Didn't everyone know we have finite resources?</p>

<p>My brows also raise when ZPG [zero population growth] is labeled a bad thing. Where the last generation leaves a system needing a new generation of greater size, don't we have the definition of a Pyramid Scheme?</p>

<p>This obvious, looming crisis has long been coming. Hopefully it will change our assumptions about economics.</p>

<p>Now, we have a multi-tiered whammy videlicet the following.</p>

<p>[[1]]. Reckless and Indefensible Population Growth. Fgs, masturbate!
Personal opinion: family values and family politices exacerbate much of it. [I acknowledge I have a BIG thing against them.]</p>

<p>[[2]]. Low value of the US dollar [to which many currencies are pegged]. The causes of this is another big discussion.</p>

<p>[[3]]. High fuel costs. Aggravated by tensions in the Middle East.</p>

<p>[[4]]. Weather problems. Intense pollution.</p>

<p>[[5]]. Poor infrastructure in heavily agricultural places outside of the developed world. E.g., irrigation devices are difficult to market to rural farms in India, according to CNN.</p>

<p>All are definitively human in cause [if you disagree over part of [[4]], then it's still not the main point] and none are beyond the foresight of a middleschooler. I am confident that there are more man-made problems contributing, but only [[2]], which is now thought to have been partially avoidable ceteris paribus, has a complicated partial cure. [ [[4]] can be alleviated quite a bit by legal tactics and flooding the Hurricane Alley with granulated urea, but that's another discussion]. </p>

<p>What am I missing about this picture? Population growth is not necessary for economic growth; I don't see the incentive. The human population is far beyond the point of diseconomies of scale. I think we crossed that bridge some time after the Industrial Revolution.
Feel free to add to the list.</p>

2

<p>you're crazy
yep</p>

3

<p>Yeah, that might be what is causing the problems. </p>

<p>[Read: Bump.]</p>

4

<p>And what is your proposal for ZPG? Infanticide? Why don't you start with yourself and commit a virtuous suicide if that is what you recommend? In any case, you are fretting over a problem that you fail to define properly. "Humanity" does not suffer, since that is a man-made concept. Only people suffer; so long as there is a male and a female left, nothing will go wrong (barring unforeseen circumstances). Humanity as a species will not go extinct. People will die due to lack of sufficient resources, but how is that any different from now?</p>

5

<p>^ whats your problem anyway- the guy is just stating something which is really hapenning and needs to be given some thought. </p>

<p>Not adding to the list but its scary to see the steep rise in food prices in the past six months.
The problem- poor, illiterate people in India continue to have 7-8 kids each which they can't feed properly nor educate. The government can't implement the two child policy because of the vote bank.
What will happen-
people will die due to food shortages and theres noone to blame.</p>

6

<p>@shreya.iitk</p>

<p>What exactly is my problem? I gave this problem plenty of thought. I did not suggest that GeekNerd commit suicide UNLESS they prescribed outright murder of infants (or people for that matter). Refusing to commit suicide and advocating for murder would be hypocritical.</p>

<p>Still, I want to get back to defining the problem, something everybody seems to have a problem with. Even you defined the problem as something that already exists.</p>

7

<p>The current international system is maintained by a hegemon, United State of America. The depreciation of the dollar values and the slowing down of its shabby economy will contribute to the ultimate breakdown of this international system. Current food shortage is just one of the many phenomenon future historian will count as one of the causes to the destruction of the international system maintained by the U.S.
No Republic ever lasted for more than 400 years, American will not be an exception to that rule. History did not end with the fall of soviet union, the struggle of humanity will be carrying on in the next few centuries.
Just look at the natural cycles of population growth and decay, we humans are like bacterias or viruses, we consume and overproduce, now we have this mad consumerist economy which is going to consume the existence of humanity and the possibility for surivival in the upcoming century.
With not only food shortages but global warming and wars, how far do you think human can enjoy their Pax Americana? Not so long. </p>

<p>Lastly, regarding to your people's damnation towards population growth, allow me to quote Stalin: "Man is the problem, no man, no problem."
:) Have a wonderful day and eat more cheesecakes. yay</p>

8

<p>Heh, even Stalin failed to identify the problem. Not that I was looking forward to useful information from him in the first place (let's leave that for another topic). So I ask once again, what is the problem? Afterward, we can move forward (or backward) from there.</p>

9

<p>Read "A Modest Proposal" for a nice plan of action. Not only does this reduce population, it increases food supply. It should be available online.</p>

10

<p>HAHAHA LET'S EAT DELICIOUS BABIES!
yayaya
Babies are such a tender meat. They are so god damn delicious. Yummy stuff. </p>

<p>What is the problem?
I cannot really answer this question, for I can't really make such generalization on the problems themselves. But what I do know is that Man is the cause of all problems. Human is like viruses, it does not really obey the laws of evolution. It is not restrained by the environment, and it reproduces itself infinitely.</p>

11

<p>i want six kids.</p>

12

<p>--@Liist: I read it a long time ago. I think the commentary came from an observer that was not part of the overcrowded population, and I don't think he/she was addressing anything seriously apart perceived cruelty. It's not really useful.</p>

<p>--afruff23: Nee, I don't suggest infanticide outright.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In any case, you are fretting over a problem

[/quote]

denial

[quote]
that you fail to define properly.

[/quote]

The major flaw is that I did not try to define it. I apologise for any frustration this may have caused. I appreciate that you acknowledged the thread in spite of it. :)

[quote]

"Humanity" does not suffer

[/quote]

This, I acknowledge.

[quote]

"Humanity" does not suffer, since that is a man-made concept.

[/quote]

Both Humanity and Suffering are man-made concepts. I think that Humanity is the less useful of the two. It may be argued that Suffering is relative but we live and think in frameworks that are constantly drawn by comparison, and hence relative perceptions.

[quote]

[Only people suffer] ...
so long as there is a male and a female left, nothing will go wrong (barring unforeseen circumstances).

[/quote]

What do you mean "nothing will go wrong"? I would not fathom that a family would naturally live in peace. Surely they would murder some of themselves.</p>

<p>Evidently "the" problem is quite elusive. So let us consider some propositions.
Here is one possible train of thought.
Assumption: Innate Selfishness.
Limitation: Innate Kindness.
Consider a condition where humans have to critically think about what they want and how they are going to get it.
Going with selfishness alone, it is in each of the individuals' interests to co-operate for the economies of scale. To make some returns certain, laws would be useful. To deal with special circumstances, the person may break some of those laws, but would lie about the lawbreaking to maintain returns. Alternatively the law system would allow the persons to barter for foreseeable exceptions (this would reduce, but not necessarily eliminate, crime). To ensure that one is not threatened by the lawbreaking of others a logical law system would strip person A of rights associated with law N when person A breaks law N. Perhaps freedom should not be an exception; idk. (With prison, freedom is no exception in society as it is. However, it would be more effective to have a couple (ie a different combination for almost every other law) of less extreme right-strippings.)
Now insert our predicament, whatever it may be. [Just because we do not know the full list membership of an algebraic object does NOT mean we cannot make deductions about its behaviour.]
I think we should engage in limited infanticide/abortion as is natural [acc to a couple of anth texts [ I recall Readings by Podolefsky], nomadic pre-trade women carrying their babies around had to kill the excess]. It is to the benefit of the existing person. Overpopulation is counter to altruism; infanticide is not. I do not see a hypocricy in this; it is like particle-wave duality: reality might not seem convoluted, but it is not for the simplistic handwaiver.
Due to selfishness (and because some persons are more useful than others) it would be silly to kill healthy intelligent adults. Now they would consider whether they would reasonably want to consider whether they would kill others, and whether they would reproduce. Of course they might like sex. Sterility is a fine option there. Due to (limited) reciprocation of law, there might be great pressure against the killing of the aged. After all, they would consider themselves in old age. On the other hand, as it is primarily a matter of usefulness, a stipulation could exist against useless persons over the age of, say, 14 or 28 or 56. Idk. Where that exists, it would be the responsibility of the existing things to ensure that they remain "useful", however that is defined.</p>

<p>The above gedank is in some places poorly thought-out; it makes no claim about its definitions, and those would be clearly appreciated for discussion. Use it as your own fodder. Although it does not make a claim on its practicality either, the negative here is obvious. Now while I agree slightly that infanticide is natural and should be encouraged, all life has potential and we should weed very carefully. Instead, we could require childrearing by licensed professionals. Every year, the Raisers would release N persons from their care, say, at age X. The Raisers should be specialists at there art, so potential is not lost and abused as it is in the traditional family. The restriction would be that N would oscillate in a particular set, and be carefully adjusted by a socially and economically informed council. All the others at age X would be subjected to skills training and neutered or sterilised. [Here we assume that NO-ONE has the right to raise children without institutional backing and/or license.]</p>

<p>In many cases, I think we could replace Stalin's "problem" with "myopia" and "family".</p>

<p>Now perhaps we could get some more proposals. I am not yet actively supporting anything I have said. It is a bit too complicated for ideological loyalty.</p>

<hr>

<p>It just hit me that I did not propose a solution; I proposed restarts. Sorry; I'll be back tomorrow. Manipulations on world econ and soci are hard.</p>

13

<p>i'll drive my flexfuel SUV no matter what. who cares that i drive 2 miles a day in urban conditions. screw india</p>

14

<p>Gah. I just retyped much of it in edits and the 20 minutes expired! I'll be back tomorrow, but here is what I changed, concisely.</p>

<ol>
<li>I'm re-thinking the usefulness of the Modest Proposal.</li>
<li>The only critical sets under the egotistical model are
i) the null set
ii) the personal set
and
iii) the universal set.
All this nonsense about family, god and country has to be washed away. It is unlikely to happen gradually unless a world government anarchy [ie de-centralised completely] is instituted. And that might not work long unless law is executed by personal contract where rights are traded with responsibilities. It is unlikely to happen suddenly unless a world is dropped into turmoil. [I am the sort of person who says "yes" to the question "Would you prefer a random life?" and experiences little value for anti-chaos.]</li>
<li>Stupidity must invalidate life.</li>
</ol>

15

<p>afruff23
The problem is a subjective thing. Here is one definition.</p>

<p>The active demand made by the human population is on an unsustainable path in that it may exceeded the resources available.</p>

<p>Here's another.</p>

<p>Intercompetition for resources, among humans, now demands that humans must die en masse.
This probably unsubstanciated claim is perceived as a problem where normal conditions require mere strife as opposed to death.</p>

16

<p>Jeez, GeekNerd is such a commie.
But remember, there are unintended consequences in everything.
Human is a dejected race, it is haunted by his own reality, a reality that is infertile and unproductive, consumerism! Madness! and sex!</p>

<p>So, let's just sit back and chill. Do our own job rather than carrying out some grand enlightenment ideals </p>

<p>I know I'm such a nihilist these days. Who ain't? lol</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
Both Humanity and Suffering are man-made concepts. I think that Humanity is the less useful of the two. It may be argued that Suffering is relative but we live and think in frameworks that are constantly drawn by comparison, and hence relative perceptions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Maybe I wasn't particularly clear, but what I mean by "humanity" cannot suffer is ascribing individual traits top a group. A group cannot feel pain or be happy, but individual people can. Suffering is very real and happened to individual people all the time.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What do you mean "nothing will go wrong"? I would not fathom that a family would naturally live in peace. Surely they would murder some of themselves.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I mean nothing will go wrong in terms of humans not going extinct. It wouldn't happen simply because of overpopulation.</p>

<p>As for your hypothetical family, who is to blame for a lack of resources? Are not the parents of the family committing neglect by having children while knowing they cannot adequately care for them?</p>

<p>As for the rest of your post, it really is hard to follow what you are trying to say other than infanticide and abortion. As I said before, if you are advocating for infanticide then you must be killed/commit suicide against your will lest you be a hypocrite (i.e. logically inconsistent).</p>

<p>I also got the gist that you might be in a favor of standardized breeding, to which I will now point out that the "problem" has nothing to do with. Those who breed too much will die of their own irresponsibility and thus there is no need to be a fascist and control the population's breeding habits. The "problem" only affects those who are irresponsible. There is no need for any control.</p>

<p>In any case, I think voluntary human cooperation is the best way to solve any problems and as such, I am an anarchist in the market-oriented tradition.</p>

18

<p>
[quote]

Maybe I wasn't particularly clear, but what I mean by "humanity" cannot suffer is ascribing individual traits top a group. A group cannot feel pain or be happy, but individual people can. Suffering is very real and happened to individual people all the time.

[/quote]
</p>

<h2>Understood. I agree.</h2>

<h2>While I agree that humans are unlikely to go extinct, Iplace prime priority on the individual and I can't agree that it is acceptable for the group to go on while the individuals are in pain.</h2>

<h2>Plain and simple, my points are for the good of the unit. The personal unit.</h2>

<p>Also, while we are in remarkable concorde as far as political priorities go, we seem to try to protect it by completely opposite means.
If we let the people do as they please, then sure, they'll suffer at their own hands. However, they will take everyone down with them.
[So the sillies need to be controlled.]</p>

<h2>The "problem" will never be confined to its perpetrators. This is where I break from my intellectual traditions and propose a community action. At least it may be a necessary evil.</h2>

<h2>"Standardized beeding" is very far from my idea. We should not "standardize" society. Instead, let people breed and engage in sterilization as a disincentive for offspring that are not as smart or benevolent as the rest.</h2>

<p>My opinion yesterday was not thoroughly expressed, and it will probably be forgotten. It has already changed. Reality is way too complicated for the condemnation of hypocricy. We cannot prosecute the wave-particles. And hypocrisy is not inconsistency. It is only anomalous inconsistency. There is no need for me to have belief, faith, loyalty or anomalous consistency. I do not assert (my) truth is constant.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
While I agree that humans are unlikely to go extinct, Iplace prime priority on the individual and I can't agree that it is acceptable for the group to go on while the individuals are in pain.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Once again, you have misdiagnosed the "problem". What are the consequences of overpopulation? Less resources for survival resulting in death. But nobody is entitled to the labor of others (e.g. food). Thus, nobody has violated any rights. When you talk about eugenics (sterilization is already completely legal BTW) of the poor, you are in effect asserting ownership over them.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The "problem" will never be confined to its perpetrators. This is where I break from my intellectual traditions and propose a community action. At least it may be a necessary evil.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See above. When you create false moral codes (e.g. plentiful resources must exist), you end up violating the very obvious basic rights (e.g. no acts of aggression must be initiated) with things like forced eugenics (I highly doubt must people would volunteer themselves for eugenics).</p>

<p>Once again, food is not a right.</p>

20

<p>@alicewang</p>

<p>
[quote]
anyways GeekNerd, a more efficient idea is to change human nature. it can be done, by finding a means to feed people drugs that would curb their libido and greed.

[/quote]
</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Who gets to administer it (i.e. does not have to take it themselves)?</p></li>
<li><p>You don't think people would find this out.</p></li>
<li><p>You can cure greed with drugs?</p></li>
<li><p>That sounds very fascist and unethical.</p></li>
<li><p>You are not going to ever change human nature. It's in our genes and instinctual.</p></li>
</ol>