Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Harry wrote: "Fahmi wrote: "I'm gonna get myself in trouble here but, take out the racism, and the classism, I'm not so sure that eugenics is such a bad thing."

You willing to lay down your life first then are ..."
The typical snyd comment ot anyone who argues in favour of eugenics is "willing to lay down your own life". Eugenics is firstly about deciding who should be Born not about People being vapourised or otherwise done away with. That indeed raises the question of "who decides". But helping hundreds of thousands to survive diseases which claimed their lives in the past is a kind of eugenics. It supports the weak who would otherwis perish if we just had nature red in tooth and claw.

Fahmi wrote: "I'm gonna get myself in trouble here but, take out the racism, and the classism, I'm not so sure that eugenics is such a bad thing."

Racism? Classism? Classifications which are concocted so as to sound evil by those who want them to so sound.

Harry wrote: "So... this whole question of are we overpopulated. I've briefly mentioned before that it's a topic I think gets misunderstood. I'm less than a layman on the subject, but here's what I reckon.

Here..."

The dictionary Definition is a tad tenacious is it not? Over eating is eating too much. Over drinking likewise, oversleeping, over working. But with the dictionary Definition of over Population an extraneous element is introduced, namely "recources" but purely, over populatiuon means just what it says too many people.

Vanessa wrote: "Just stumbled on this thread and have been blown away by the arguments.

Not sure what to really believe, but since I work in a Foodbank in the UK it amazes me that even in a "richer" country pover..."

"I think the issue is not overpopulation, but whether some people should be allowed to have kids they are going to abuse, etc" But the subject is overpopulation not abuse, so all you are saying is you don't think there is overpopulation and nobody should worry about too many people because there are not too many people.

Esdaile wrote: "Again: is anyone answering to the "we" Monitoring this discussion group going to state whether non-human species of Fauna (and Flora) are of any account at all in considering whether human overpopu..."

Diz wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote: "human beings are delightful animals who bring nothing but joy to the world"

Isn't there a theory somewhere that suggests that the reason we have not found intelligent extra-te..."

This question remains unanswered: does everyone agree that the welfare of non-human species is completely irrelevant in considering whether there is human overpopulation or not?

Lance Morcan wrote: "Diz wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote: "human beings are delightful animals who bring nothing but joy to the world"

Isn't there a theory somewhere that suggests that the reason we have not found intellig..."

This obviously grotesque assertion could have come from Dean Swift and I must presume it is written in the most bitter irony: "human beings are delightful animals who bring nothing but joy to the world"

Harry wrote: "Take into factor things like crops being purposely destroyed in South America or Afghanistan, UnFairTrade for most people in developing countries, children having no choice but to put their lives in danger for panning gold or finding blood diamonds and... well, you know the rest.

These are just some of a plethora of factors that create poverty, which equals: not sufficient resources to live on. I mean, we all know how much poverty's in the world, right? My point is that we are already living in an unacceptable world of poverty in which resources are not used appropriately and people are dying of starvation, lack of water and medical care, and all the rest- so why evens say: Are there too many people to sustain? when that's exactly the world we're living in. ONLY- it's not to do with overpopulation. It is a lot to do with 1% fat cat greed though.
..."

In my opinion that's a pretty good summary of the situation of the Earth in 2015, Harry.

Esdaile wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote: "Diz wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote: "human beings are delightful animals who bring nothing but joy to the world"

Isn't there a theory somewhere that suggests that the reason we ha..."

Since Diz's post, which was incorrectly attributed to me, Diz has kindly apologised for the error (#82)...but I guess you're aware of that.

Harry wrote: "So... this whole question of are we overpopulated. I've briefly mentioned before that it's a topic I think gets misunderstood. I'm less than a layman on the subject, but here's what I reckon.

Here..."

Excellent points! And it would appear most Undergrounders would agree with you judging by our poll result.

Lance Morcan wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote: "Diz wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote: "human beings are delightful animals who bring nothing but joy to the world"

Isn't there a theory somewhere that suggests that ..."
Obviously I would not have quoted you if I had known the quotation was false. I am glad you are quick to point out that you did not say anything of the kind. My apologies.

James Morcan wrote: "Harry wrote: "Take into factor things like crops being purposely destroyed in South America or Afghanistan, UnFairTrade for most people in developing countries, children having no choice but to put..."

This is the usual humanist lovey dovey pap which the churches and politicians and hundreds of do-gooder organizations moralise about every day. "1%Fat cat greed" oh yea? What part of "fat cat greed" do you not aspire to yourself? Do you not eat in restaurants, go to bars? Do you have a car? Central heating? Air conditioning? A fridge? A washing machine? Expensive medical care? Easy to get and cheap food? Is all that your "1% fat cat greed"? The Trouble is that far more than 1% of the world have these things and pretty well 100% of the burgeoning world population wants those things. It is totally wrong to say that the problems of poverty are "I% fat cat greed" but it is very comforting to say that, because not being in the 1% fat cat elite yourself you absolve yourself of all responsibility for world inequality. The fault is always someone else's, in this case a "1% fat cat" elite. Why 1%? Why not 2%? 5% ? Oh who cares about little details like percentages, right? So we have 1% out of your rhetorical hat: because everybody can pat themselves on the back and say "Gee, I'm not a member of that nasty 1% fat cat gang."

Esdaile...

"Wow, how confident you are! With Zero statistics to suppoort the Argument, just "bet your ass" (no I wouldn't)."

Yep, I'm confident. How can I present statistics based on an ideology where the world lives without war and other profit games causing poverty when we're not there yet? But judging simply on, 'could we do it if we wanted to?' -yep, I'm confident. That's just me. I wonder.... y'know... it might be possible if we all thought it was!


"Nobody has yet answered my question (any of my questions really but this one here)-what would be a satisfactory standard of living to which apprently everyone could attain if resources would be distributed "fairly"? I mean would everybody be able to have a house, fridge, car and Swimming pool and be able to travel by Jet around the world? Or would you say this is an example of "greed"? The entire population of the world? Are you claiming that this is possible?"

I, and I would assume most people who have the stance I take, would say that a satisfactory quality of living begins with everybody having the basic human needs- then work for whatever perceived luxury after that. Fucking simple.

"The typical snyd comment ot anyone who argues in favour of eugenics is "willing to lay down your own life".

Snide? I don't understand why a logical and fair opinion of such an argument (and yes, one's that cliched) should be snide!


"This is the usual humanist lovey dovey pap which the churches and politicians and hundreds of do-gooder organizations moralise about every day. "1%Fat cat greed" oh yea? What part of "fat cat greed" do you not aspire to yourself?

Yes, yes, that's right. Love for humanity s simply corny sugar coated shite. We should refrain from helping one another and the Earth and live in the world of evil and injustice that we always have. What was I thinking?

Funny how 'do-gooder' has a negative connotation when to do good is surely a, er, good thing.

What part of fat cat greed do I not aspire to? Fucking none of it, and will continue to try my damndest not to until justice prevails.

Love is the answer. Don't be scared Esdaile. :)

But (apparently) you're a fat cat, Harry, or a wannabe fat cat making snide remarks in this lovey-dovey fest you've created ;)

James Morcan wrote: "But (apparently) you're a fat cat, Harry, or a wannabe fat cat making snide remarks in this lovey-dovey fest you've created ;)"

I would reply in more detail, but I'm afraid I'm just about to get on board my private jet to indulge in an orgy of high class prostitutes covered in champagne and caviar.

Well at least with those hookers you (probably) won't be creating more babies on the planet, so at least you'll be safe from criticism from eugenicists and those who subscribe to the overpopulation theory...

Harry wrote: "Esdaile...

"Wow, how confident you are! With Zero statistics to suppoort the Argument, just "bet your ass" (no I wouldn't)."

Yep, I'm confident. How can I present statistics based on an ideology ..."

For a moment I thought you were going to answer my question, but your answer was very vague. My question is, "what would be a fair standard of living to which everybody can aspire?" Your answer: "I, and I would assume most people who have the stance I take, would say that a satisfactory quality of living begins with everybody having the basic human needs- then work for whatever perceived luxury after that." Sure but what are basic human means? Accommodation? How much? Specifically: does everyone in Britain have basic needs and would they be "greedy fatcats" wanting more? Most people who talk about "fat cat greed" etc are pretty well off themselves, they can usually afford to fly around (is that a luxury or basic human need?) they all have mobiles (same question) most have cars (same question) and and and. Until there is somnething like a consensus about what basic needs are it is not possible to meaningfully discuss the distribution of resources.
"Yes, yes, that's right. Love for humanity s simply corny sugar coated shite. We should refrain from helping one another and the Earth and live in the world of evil and injustice that we always have. What was I thinking?" Ha ha scratch a humanist and you nearly always find something not very nice or humantic at all. But yes I do agree with your description of love of humanity. I do not love humanity and do not pretend to. I am touched though that you also mention saving the Earth, although you are presumably happy with millions more humans to live on it. What exactly do you propose people should do to help save the Earth if not stopping population increase? I have done my little bit in being a consistent opponent of nuclear power (just in case you are wondering).
Your comment on eugenics is snide and facile because it must be obvious to anyone that eugenics is dangerously subjective, in that any decision about what improvement will tend to start from a subjective personal assessment of what is desirable and not desirable. But that is obvious, surely.
You say you are confident but the confidence is exactly the same confidence as the person who thinks they will meet their friends in Heaven when they die. It is implausible but it is what they want to believe so they persuade themselves it is true. Ditto your completely unfounded "confidence" that there would be enough (however much "enough" because you still have not said) resources for all the people in the world if everybody was nice to one another and stopped fighting and being greedy. Of course others "fat cats") are greedy, you not at all. To finish on a conciliatory note: we might agree that combatting waste would be an enormous contribution to a more effective distribtuion of resources. Plenty of room for reforms there.

Esdaile said: "Sure but what are basic human means? Accommodation? How much? Specifically: does everyone in Britain have basic needs and would they be "greedy fatcats" wanting more? Most people who talk about "fat cat greed" etc are pretty well off themselves, they can usually afford to fly around (is that a luxury or basic human need?) they all have mobiles (same question) most have cars (same question) and and and. Until there is somnething like a consensus about what basic needs are it is not possible to meaningfully discuss the distribution of resources."

Agreed, it's a difficult question to measure basic needs when what was once an expensive novelty suddenly becomes a basic need in some people's eyes- the refrigerator, the washing machine, the car etc.

The basic needs that I refer to are: food, shelter, clean water, energy and health care. Take care of those, then move on to step two.

I thought I'd made myself clear.

Does everyone in England have basic needs? You're having a fucking laugh mate! As with most wealthy countries, we have a huge number of people below the poverty line. Over one million people in the U.K were given three days' "emergency support" food over the last year, because they can't afford to feed themselves, to use as one example.
And yet we're a far way off the poverty seen in developing countries of course.

So when YOU talk about standards of living, I can't help but see you always coming from the Middle Conservative type life. Mate, there are millions in the world that die because they don't even have clean water. So who gives a fuck about what basic needs would mean for the average middle classer?

Personally, I have a mobile phone dating from 2007 which has had 30p credit on it for the last month, I've never had a car, and I've known poverty a few times. What else do you want to know about my personal values and how I live? Would you care to know what companies I boycott? How I see smoking as the only luxury I need? How I've worked for conservation charities?

Yes, a consensus of what basic human needs are is well overdue. I agree. Let's have that debate on the political platform shall we?

You said: "To finish on a conciliatory note: we might agree that combatting waste would be an enormous contribution to a more effective distribtuion of resources. Plenty of room for reforms there."

Absolutely.


And please, Esdaile, no more name calling such as 'greedy' and 'snide' (we're all grown ups here), you people hating capitalsit. :)

Anyway, what are your solutions? Eugenics?

So... we can grow vegetables in space, but we can't grow food in deserts etc. Er... right...

"Astronauts aboard the International Space Station (ISS) have, for the first time, eaten vegetables grown in space."

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/astronauts-...

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/st...

I've been trying to find out how much that project costs, but to no avail.

Harry wrote: "Esdaile said: "Sure but what are basic human means? Accommodation? How much? Specifically: does everyone in Britain have basic needs and would they be "greedy fatcats" wanting more? Most people who..."

Anyone including you and me spending time in Godreads in this debate belongs among people who are NOT in want of "basic needs". I dont have a car either most people do.
I have no idea what you mean by "let's have a debate on the politcal platform".
"Greedy" is the word the left loves to use, it is a sort of mantra for lefties. It is the left which calls people "greedy" in debates about overpopulation to divert attention from the fact that the world is dramtically overpopulated. (The left always claims that it is only a question of the distribution of recources although they would never wnat to see their own resources redistributed:)) When you start to discuss what is meant by greedy you find that plenty of people in their private lives are greedy. Then, which is par for the course for everyone who goes on and on about world poverty and how the West should feel ashamed of itself ("ooh we are so ashamed oooh" is standard journalism these days):
You write (I only removed your abusive expletive)

"So when YOU talk about standards of living, I can't help but see you always coming from the Middle Conservative type life. Mate, there are millions in the world that die because they don't even have clean water. So who gives a f** about what basic needs would mean for the average middle classer?"
Yes, I do happily admit to belonging to the middle class (dont knwo about voting Conservative but I would not vote left, that's for sure) and in answer to your disdainful superior rhetorical question "who gives a f*** about what basic needs means for the middle classes?" the answer is obviously the very middle classes you despise, including myself, the hardworking folk who make a decent standard of living for others possible in the first place. Only a few people invented the wheel. People who use the wheel should be grateful to them or not? A decent standard of living is not created by weepy Christians wialing and screeching to their sky pilot, not created by Utopian socialists for whom everything would work if everyone stopped being greedy and capitalist -same thing to them-) it is created by people who invent and work, the so-despised middle classes and entreprenneurs, the people whose standard of living you claim very implausibly, NOT to share, (what are you then, one of the deprived hungering masses? I dont think so) What gets my goat is that people denounce the middle class or upper class or fat cats and always always exclude themselves from the people they are denouncing! You are not in need of a home, you are not in need of clean water, right? So why sneer at the middle class to which by most people's definition, you presumably belong?
Also you make no mention at all of the responsibility people have towards themselves. Do you really believe that people have no responsibility to put their own lives in order? Take health care: costs are staggering and rising. Why should the healthy pay to support people who ruin their own health by overeating? Just one example. Here is another: What about the children the so-called deprived and starving masses have and go on having? The masses of Africa are apparently starving but have baby after baby. I suppose it is politically incorrect or unfair to point out that if they are lacking resources they should have fewr babies. Oh but its not a problem of over population is it? Just a problem of resources distribution, right? Oh its all culture isnt it? They cant help it. No matter how many children they have we should support everyone in need. No. I feel no obligation to support poor people who have masses of children. If you feel the need to help them so strongly, go and live among them like Mother Theresa if it gives you a good feeling. Not all people living in poverty are in poverty through misfortune (some are no question), some of them are poor because they are lazy and parasites, but I know it is not fashionable to say so.

Solutions? Plenty! Hereare one or two. Just a few ideas
1) Encourage regional autarchy-try to be as self sufficient as possible. I should love to see the day when Saudi Arabia had to produce something instead of selling oil, which the sheiks would not even have the know how to exploit without help from "greedy capitalists" in the first place. Saudi Arabia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world but it creates nothing, offers nothing, helps nobody, it ony sells oil and consumes consumes; this wretched pseudo-nation this oligarchy of clowns, of people who really can be called "greedy fat cats" (what an insult to cats though!)is incapable of producing one thing and is only wealthy because it sits on oil. Come to think of it, abolishing Saudi Arabia would not be a bad step towards improving the overall quality of life in the world.
2) Stop all state support of research into the prolongation of human life. Humans live long enough already. My mother lived until 93. She did not want to and the last 5 years of her life were a wasteful burden on the world's resources. Dcotors and the pharmapseutical industry make billions out of prolonging people's lives harmfully, painfully and quite unecessarily. Christians, who otherwise say that eg birth control is "unnatural" are in favour of all kinds of "unnatural" high technology when it comes to eeking out human life.
3) Stop all state support of big industry, especially nuclear power. Nuclear power is one of the most destructive, insane and worthless inventions ever made.No nation should have it. If we really want to go to war, there is a case for attacking France for allowing the EDF to sell this poison to countries unable to develop it. (I jest).
4) Allow no asylum for any families or any persons with children, only for individuals
5) Reverse agricultural subsidies so that the bigger the farm the lower the subsidy (today in the US and the EU, the larger the farm the more money a sort of income tax in reverse-that is the logic of agribusiness but not reasonable). French farmers who burn their produce in public should go to prison and not pass Go or collect any money.
6) Cap government debt making it impossible for the state to borrow or lend money above a fixed level
7) Ban the export of all military hardware
8) Introduce a means test to limit the amount of children a family can have-children being born should not exceed the rate at which people die
9) Set a population target for every part of the world to try and reach consensus on stable populations
10) Eugenics, which you mention, is a thorny issue principally because of very justified fears about who decides who is ok and who not. I am rather reluctantly opposed (I like it in theory) because I fear it would put too much power in the hands of the state. But I am open to persuasion that it is a good idea.

Thanks for the detailed response Esdaile. In answer to:

"What gets my goat is that people denounce the middle class or upper class or fat cats and always always exclude themselves from the people they are denouncing! You are not in need of a home, you are not in need of clean water, right? So why sneer at the middle class to which by most people's definition, you presumably belong?"

and other mentions of 'Lefties think this...':

I don''t sneer at the middle class, or the upper class or anyone (unless my humour is sometimes misconstrued). I respect everyone and know very well how hard people work in every class(apart from, perhaps, the top 0.001%, which is where the real problem lies).

I'm not some 'Lefty' who says: let's make the world for all the hippies and vegans! I'm a guy who says: why can't we make a balanced society for ALL? -including the rich. But I still couldn't give a toss what it means to those that are better off if it meant we were catering for the poor first. It's simply a matter of priorities.

I haven't got too much to give up, but what I do have I'm continually thankful for- and if it meant we could solve global poverty, I'd certainly give up all that I do have.

Basic necessities first. Then capitalism after.

Number 3) of your list I agree with wholeheartedly (as you might expect!)
Some others are worrying to me.

And, er, I'm not sure I understand why you don't understand my statement: "let's have a debate on the politcal platform (about catering for basic needs)".

All I'm saying is: let's put solving poverty first in our list of priorities. Fuck yeah! :)

The Overpopulation Myth

As written by Professor Mario Pinheiro (also an Undergrounder):

"I believe the world is not overpopulated. It seems to be, because the poorest countries are naturally overpopulated due to a lack of state education and overspread corruption, but the population world growth is decreasing, contrary to the expectations of pseudoscientific theories, like malthusianism (in fact, Malthus inferred it based on the crazy reproduction of a population of rats, how likely he thought we are similar to that small animals...) and Darwinism...But, in a way that I still don't grasp, the supposed world elite keeps using and strongly spreading these ideologies. Are they irrationals or just evil?" -Prof. Mario Pinheiro

SCIENCE ALERT: WATCH: Is Overpopulation a Myth? https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-wi...

The World's Shrinking Population https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYZPT...

Dire predictions about an impending overpopulation crisis have loomed large in the human imagination for centuries. Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson co-authors of, "Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline," say these predictions have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, the global population is on the decline. They join The Agenda to discuss a shrinking planet and the myriad challenges it poses.

Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline



-----------------------

Why the world population won’t exceed 11 billion | Hans Rosling | TGS.ORG https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzB...

A Stunning Admission on the So-Called Population Crisis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro7SZ...

Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/4212...

Note there's some interesting comments on global overpopulation in our Climate Change/Global Warming discussion thread at https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Undergrounders are reminded those comments should be reserved for this EUGENICS thread.

Look at the numbers. World population grows every year. Earth's resources remain the same. Sure, there's plenty of room for more people, but resources are finite.