"Every child is a blessing?" uh....I don't think a discussion on "science" is a good thing for you be watching then

John, why would you say the patriotism is categorically bad? Why would it ever be a bad thing to be proud and grateful for the men and women who sacrificed their comfort and lives in the Rev. War, WWI, WWII, Civil War, etc so that you can sit there on your webcam and play on the internet? Absurd.
These people were fighting against tribalism for you.
Furthermore, being liberal, I can still recognize that there's something unique about where we live. The U.S. is the birthplace of so many culturally influential things like the internet (and many of its major websites), many scientific discoveries, etc. It's not really a bad thing to be proud that our forefathers set up better rules than what many many other countries have (i.e. Africa, Middle East.) Being "against patriotism" is such a coffeehouse cliche....no nuance at all and shamefully dismissive, arrogant and ungrateful. It shows absolutely no respect for those who came before us. (Hey, wasn't "respect" on Haidt's list?) Everyone's aware of the potential for destructiveness caused by nationalism but to write it off totally is just worthless. For example, I hate religion but I can recognize its use for others and its presence as

How do we explain congenital deformities, chromosomal syndromes? Are those blessings too?

i'm a little confused as to what your point is now. are you defending the choice of the poor to have lots of kids because that will lead to higher living standards in their country?

John speaks of the irrationality of being a Mets fan. Even worse are Cub fans - and we hate the Mets. 1969 is too painful to talk about. So why do people continue to support this team? Steve Goodman was the consummate Cub fan. He died in 1984 - having already penned "A Dying Cub Fans Last Request". But the people who pack Wrigley Field still sing Goodman's "Go, Cubs Go!" after the game. This year, the Cubs failed us again - but we will be there again next year - and the year after that and the year after that and..... Rational people may question this behavior. Science has studied it. The results are in "Your Brain on Cubs:
Inside the Heads of Players and Fans" edited by Dan Gordon. Brief summary -
A group of today’s leading science writers and neuroscientists explore here the ways that our brain functions when we participate in sports as fans, athletes, and coaches, taking baseball as the quintessential sport for all three perspectives.

that's an honorable thing to say but the reality is that almost every underdeveloped country, especially places like Bangladesh, Nigeria, India, etc. just don't have the physical or financial structure in place to support the amount of people they have. to me, that qualifies as overpopulation. these countries clearly don't have the ability to feed, clothe or employ their populations. I think most people understand that, technically, we can fill the earth with billions more people but it's gonna get uglier rather than prettier as far as pollution and death go. i understand the (presumably religiously based) urge to fight against the prevailing (liberal) wisdom that there are too many people but when you see video of a Lagos, Nigeria slum there's just no other way to look at it. those people are suffering terribly.

Quoting kidneystones: George is wrong to claim there are too many people in the world.

Every life has value, even that of a roach or a 'weed'.

Hi KS. I haven't seen the diavlog yet, and so perhaps I shouldn't be commenting, but I will anyway. I'm very sympathetic to what you say about the value of life. But I think someone can believe that all life is valuable and think there are too many people in the world. I personally don't have an opinion as to whether there are too many people or not; but even if there aren't, it seems clear that a point could eventually be reached at which there are. At such a point a person who values all life could avoid destroying life (to the extent possible), but might favor limiting the rate at which new life is created. But perhaps you think that's problematic too. (Do you?) At any rate, not creating a new life is different from destroying an already existing life, and so should to be treated separately.

From my perspective, this is somewhere at the center of the divide between liberals and conservatives. Some people seem to take it as axiomatic that the ultimate good is to maximize the number of quality human lives on the planet. I don't get that at all. I don't see how 10 billion people is in any way better than 5 billion people, even if the quality of life per person is exactly the same. The human population will have to stabilize somewhere, after all, so sooner or later we'll have to get used to the fact of zero growth. I also put a lot of value on conserving some of the state of the planet, including its diversity aside from humanity. However, these aren't things I can defend based on logic or deeper principles. On the other hand, I'm sure they aren't things that can be refuted either.

Here we have two different 'dimensions' of the topic of reproduction. KS is expressing his/her views on the inner experience of parenting or the 'joy' of interacting with children. I agree that there's wonder and beauty in every form of life, if you care to be receptive to it. You may choose to look at the negative aspects of life with indignant outrage or focus on the resilience, the compassion, solidarity and other positive aspects it promotes. Working with people with various disabilities, of any age, and finding the beauty in them is a wondrous and humbling experience. Regardless of whether you are religious or not, one shouldn't reject the inner experience of 'sacredness of life'. This is part of what drives us to go on in spite of difficulties and to find our place within a larger meaningful context. The second 'dimension', as expressed by fedorovingtonboop, is a more pragmatic view. The balance between this 'life drive' and rationality has to be found. We do not have unlimited resources. Even if the entire world population could be redistributed, I'm afraid we are past the number of members of one single species that can

The problem of patriotism is dependent on the meaning you give to it and whether it becomes an overriding principle placed above other more universal principles. So the issue is about each of us having a better understanding of what patriotism entails and how high it is in our moral hierarchy of principles. Patriotism is tribalism. It is ingroup loyalty. It is 'us vs them'. If you believe in these concepts, then you wouldn't challenge the idea of patriotism. But, if you recognize that although tribalism and the other definitions are part of our innate make up, but that it can lead to actions that we morally reject, then you have to question, at least, how much 'patriotism' is acceptable and how far you are willing to go to defend it. I think this is the dilemma that John was referring to in the diavlog.

I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.

Excellent diavlog! Very thought provoking in many topics. When John and George are talking about Haidt's findings they mention the position of 'conforming to non-conformism'. This is the problem of being anti- something. Should we be dogmatic about being non-dogmatic? In my opinion these are the 'traps' of language. The general idea is to be dynamic, to seek change, to improve. That requires questioning what is established, avoiding blind rigid adherence to one perspective, keeping an open mind and looking for alternative solutions. If we want to call these non-conformism, it's fine. But we shouldn't conclude that we have to 'reject' everything that is established. After revising certain principles, we may decide it's OK to keep them, at least for the time being. Rebellion has to be rational and not a blind reflex. And that doesn't make it conformism. A similar fallacy appears with the concept of 'tolerance'. Tolerance should be reciprocal, not just tolerance of the other. Perhaps one could argue that it's better to start by being tolerant, since it wouldn't be uncommon that the other side will follow by reciprocating. But, that isn't always the case. In such situation the idea of tolerance has to be supplemented by the

I loved it that John dismissed Haidt as "Pop psychology" -- that's exactly what he's doing.
Haidt takes popular confusions about liberalism (e.g. that it's based on relativism) along with ephemeral social facts (the recent polarization of America along secular vs. religious lines) and produces an eternal psychological theory to explain why these things have always been so (even though they haven't always been so). I wish John hadn't then followed Haidt in confusing liberal tolerance with moral relativism. Tolerance is NOT NOT NOT the view that every view is right!!!!! It is the view that evidence and argument should be the main means of "suppressing" wrong views, and that force can be used against such views or rather the practical application of such views) in only very limited circumstances -- where there is strong evidence that a non-consenting party will be harmed. There is NO CONTRADICTION -- NO WAY, NO HOW -- between saying that and saying that liberalism really is the correct moral view.
LIberalism does not compel the liberal to believe that theocrats are equally right. Nor does it compel the liberal state to do nothing to prevent the theocrats from taking power. It can't prevent theocratic views

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: John, why would you say the patriotism is categorically bad? Why would it ever be a bad thing to be proud and grateful for the men and women who sacrificed their comfort and lives in the Rev. War, WWI, WWII, Civil War, etc so that you can sit there on your webcam and play on the internet? Absurd.

If our boys hadn't fought off the Nazis, you'd be talking on a Webernkamera. And ya wouldn't be playing on them intertubes, you'd be fillin' em -- with skulls!

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: Why would it ever be a bad thing to be proud and grateful for the men and women who sacrificed their comfort and lives in the Rev. War, WWI, WWII, Civil War, etc

Why do you think that's patriotism? To me, the way the people use the word 'patriotism' today corresponds with the term 'loyalist' as used during the Revolutionary War. Back then a 'patriot' was a traitor to the crown and held no allegiance to any nation. The Patriots of the American Revolution held fast to principles, not to states. In the truest American sense, patriotism is the opposite of blind, arbitrary loyalty. My family fought against Britain in that war, and because we came from Rhode Island, the thirteenth stripe on the flag represents us. That's my family's blood--and the blood of people we killed--in the red of that stripe. And I'd burn that flag in heartbeat, if I felt it necessary to communicate my point. I'm a patriot of the values, not of the symbols or even the attempt to realize those values in a nation.

These bloggingheads seem to have a condescending attitude toward religion and patriotism. I guess the many thousands of people who go to churches in South Los Angeles where I live are mentally challenged. Also, the large proportion of males in my family who served in the military were wasting their time. John

Even in a Prius, a two hour commute doesn't seem very green

Quoting bkjazfan: These bloggingheads seem to have a condescending attitude toward religion and patriotism. I guess the many thousands of people who go to churches in South Los Angeles where I live are mentally challenged. Also, the large proportion of males in my family who served in the military were wasting their time.

John

John, I don't think that was the intention. At least for me, the reaction that I have when someone talks about "patriotism" has more to do with a particular view of patriotism which has become pervasive in recent years in this country. It's more about being called "anti-patriotic" if one criticizes certain actions taken, for example, by the current government. Many people will say it's anti-patriotic to criticize the war or to criticize aspects of American culture. Loving your country and being proud of its history, its people, and its accomplishments is part of being human, and it's not a bad thing. But if you use the word "patriotism" to defend nationalism above other values, or to justify supremacy or imperialism or extreme interventionism or lack of self-criticism, then many of us would have a problem with it. Those who serve in the military are

This episodes was kind of a bummer, because thanks to BH I'm a big Haidt fan, and John and George knew less about his research than they would have learned by simply watching either of the episodes he's done. "Pop psychology" is a pretty severe condemnation to make when you don't know anything about the subject.

Quoting Ray: Why do you think that's patriotism?

Um...because that's a pretty typical and very reasonable definition of patriotism, perhaps? (Pride) I'm not really sure if you're disagreeing with me or just asking....

Science Saturday fucking rocks.

It's obscurantist to hold that there are too many people on the planet, and anybody who imagines otherwise needs to work through Julian Simon's magnum opus The Ultimate Resource 2. The title refers to human ingenuity, and the book marshals a wealth of data to show that historically, population increases result in improved living standards as people generate new and better ways to employ natural resources. So why are Malthusians and other doomsayers constantly getting a hearing? For the same reason that crime stories lead the local news, not because the opinion has merit. Voicing it is almost as great an offense against reason as suggesting that a person who uses the word "blessing" has no place in a scientific discussion. Behold the tolerance of the Enlightened!

Quoting jeffpeterson: It's obscurantist to hold that there are too many people on the planet, and anybody who imagines otherwise needs to work through Julian Simon's magnum opus The Ultimate Resource 2. The title refers to human ingenuity, and the book marshals a wealth of data to show that historically, population increases result in improved living standards as people generate new and better ways to employ natural resources. So why are Malthusians and other doomsayers constantly getting a hearing? For the same reason that crime stories lead the local news, not because the opinion has merit. Voicing it is almost as great an offense against reason as suggesting that a person who uses the word "blessing" has no place in a scientific discussion. Behold the tolerance of the Enlightened!

By the same argument, since my glass of lemonade has not overflowed up until now, I can fit an infinite amount of lemonade in my glass. I'd be careful of accusing others of an "offense against reason," if I were you.

The "two world-views" which inform liberal vs conservative are bio-psychological in origin. We humans have both psychologies (the improvabilist and fallibilst) within us, but one usually predominates. Both psychologies, by the way, are very 'tribal.' If humans who are liberals do not believe they are just as tribal as conservative humans, they are not paying attention to their herding behavior. Communalism is, by its nature, tribal.

George on a commercial featuring a country music star. Just to make sure we don't defame the great Merle Haggard, let's recognize the fact that Merle is a Democrat. (I think Hank Williams Jr. does a McCain/Palin ad, so maybe it's him.) p.s. I always heard that Okie from Muskogee was intended as ironic, because ole Merle was smoking pot, no matter what the Okies thought. So, the intro paragraph to that Time article is a little skewed I think.

"blessing" really doesn't have a place in a scientific discussion, obviously, because the user is making a religious reference...which is worthless in a discussion like that.
as far as population goes, what about the 5 out of 7 billion people who are poor as hell? how are their living standards? that's my definition of "too many people." not to mention the ridiculous amount of pollution being put out...

Quoting Ocean: Here we have two different 'dimensions' of the topic of reproduction.

Agreed. I think ks is thinking in terms of individuals and the value, worth, joy, and love that one's child evokes. This is not only valid, it's fundamental to how we're wired. However, I'm with the camp that thinks that all of those individuals added together produce a burden that we cannot sustain. We're fouling our own nest, and as far as getting along goes, we no longer have enough elbow room. I don't agree that we have available vast swaths of land that could hold more people. A big reason for many of these areas to be sparsely populated is that they can't easily support a lot of people. Many have the most fundamental problem of all: a lack of water. It is one of the happiest discoveries of recent times that increased health and education tends to cause a decline in the birth rate. I vote for doubling down along those lines.

BN: Good to see you back. Good response. I'll just address one bit:

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: So what is the supposed inconsistency of liberalism? How is tolerance supposed to undermine itself again?

I believe tolerance can, in principle, be taken too far, and that this can, in principle, have the effect of undermining itself. For example, if a group of people move into an area, and they have fundamentally different ideas about what is the right way to conduct society, and they make demands that society accommodate them, this can cause serious problems. You might have that group gaining a disproportionate amount of clout, with the result that tolerating that group leads to that group imposing a less tolerant approach on everyone. You might provoke resentment among those not in that group, with the result that toleration of that group leads to an increased intolerance of them. I think it's also possible that tolerating "everything" can, in the extreme, leads to a certain amount of intellectual mushiness. So, that's how I think it's possible for tolerance to undermine itself.

Is whether or not to try to maximize human population at the current carrying capacity of the earth really a conservative/liberal divide? Even with the common abuse of the term conservative to mean whatever the Republican party is saying at the moment rather than any specific philosophy, I haven't really been aware of this as a general issue of partisanship or philosophy. There seem to be plenty of folks who claim the conservative label whatever it may mean to them, who apparantly prefer to live in lower population density situations. Similarly, although the Republican party does include some who follow the "keep 'em barefoot and pregnant" approach for personal or religious reasons, there is no shortage of people who choose to limit their family sizes.

I suspect that research would reveal a good case that human population has essentially reflected the carrying capacity of the various regions of the earth for most of human history. Recall for example Dr. Homer-Dixon's analysis of the collapse of the Roman Empire, which could no longer produce enough food to maintain the complexity of its civilization with so many members who were not involved with food production, given the agriculture of the time. (Can't recall the title of that BH episode right off.) It is only recently that reliable birth control has been a factor in limiting population size. Previously, premature death by various causes was the significant limiting factor as it remains in many parts of the world today.

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: John, why would you say the patriotism is categorically bad? Why would it ever be a bad thing to be proud and grateful for the men and women who sacrificed their comfort and lives in the Rev. War, WWI, WWII, Civil War, etc so that you can sit there on your webcam and play on the internet? Absurd.
These people were fighting against tribalism for you.
Furthermore, being liberal, I can still recognize that there's something unique about where we live.

Speaking as a libertarian (who is often mistaken for being conservative), I find that it is entirely possible to be an American "exceptionalist" without being a nationalist. America, to me, represents a structure which is in place to preserve capitalism and civil liberty. Possibly the best such structure anywhere in the world right now. I love my rights, therefore I love America. But I only love America as the best-available means to an end. Being tribalist about America doesn't even make sense. "American" doesn't describe a race, or even a common culture. Put a Freeper in a room with a Kossite and tell me they have any sense of shared culture whatsoever.

I doubt it's perfectly aligned along the liberal/conservative divide, but then I think you're going to have a very hard time finding someone who considers themselves liberal, and also thinks it's regrettable that there are places on Earth that are not yet inhabited by humans to their full capacity.

are you agreeing, disagreeing or just saying?

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: Um...because that's a pretty typical and very reasonable definition of patriotism, perhaps? (Pride) I'm not really sure if you're disagreeing with me or just asking....

I'm disagreeing with you. Patriotism in the U.S. is extremely complicated, because our founding act was, quite literally, treasonous, anti-patriotic. And this discussion is primarily about patriotism in an American context. The definition you're using--pride in the traditions and accomplishments of people who belong to the same nation as you--fits the word 'loyalist', which remains a slur in the U.S. to the present day.

uh...what? when people use the word "patriotism" today they do not in any way mean "traitor." I get it that you've studied history but you're adding something that doesn't need to be added.....kinda like claiming that "redneck" is still offensive because it used to be a more direct slur...it ain't offensive and neither is "patriotic." it's just generally pride in one's country - it's in the dictionary and the way i used it is by far the most often used and definitely appropriate.

Quoting bjkeefe: Agreed. I think ks is thinking in terms of individuals and the value, worth, joy, and love that one's child evokes. This is not only valid, it's fundamental to how we're wired.

However, I'm with the camp that thinks that all of those individuals added together produce a burden that we cannot sustain. We're fouling our own nest, and as far as getting along goes, we no longer have enough elbow room.

I don't agree that we have available vast swaths of land that could hold more people. A big reason for many of these areas to be sparsely populated is that they can't easily support a lot of people. Many have the most fundamental problem of all: a lack of water.

It is one of the happiest discoveries of recent times that increased health and education tends to cause a decline in the birth rate. I vote for doubling down along those lines.

I agree with all the above. I just would add that I think KS didn't just refer to love for one's own kids but his/her appreciation of people that are 'defective'. This is 'way more' than affiliation to your immediate kin.

I posted this before:

A similar fallacy appears with the concept of 'tolerance'. Tolerance should be reciprocal, not just tolerance of the other. Perhaps one could argue that it's better to start by being tolerant, since it wouldn't be uncommon that the other side will follow by reciprocating. But, that isn't always the case. In such situation the idea of tolerance has to be supplemented by the idea of placing some boundaries, or protections to our position. Ultimately, the problem will always reside on where the 'power' resides. If the power resides with the more tolerant side, it's easier to maintain diversity. If the power resides in the non-tolerant side, then the risk of totalitarianism is greater.

Is that what you are talking about?

To summarize aemjeff and fedorovingtonboop comments. Your argument about historical data is inapplicable because as far as we know we haven't had 6-7 billion people in this planet before. We have been pushing the limits for a while.

Quoting a Duoist: The "two world-views" which inform liberal vs conservative are bio-psychological in origin. We humans have both psychologies (the improvabilist and fallibilst) within us, but one usually predominates. Both psychologies, by the way, are very 'tribal.' If humans who are liberals do not believe they are just as tribal as conservative humans, they are not paying attention to their herding behavior. Communalism is, by its nature, tribal.

Agree. I don't think we have escaped tribalism. Being aware of it and moderating it is the best we can aspire to achieve for now. The circle that includes those that we consider part of our group can widen to include all people in this planet, all forms of life (animal, plants), nature, etc. And then we have other planets, and so on. I'm not sure whether we can in practice, ever do away with dualism. And I'm not qualified to go beyond this idea.

Quoting Ocean: I posted this before: [...]

Is that what you are talking about?

It catches some of the same spirit, yes.

I think both George and John fell into some logical traps/fallacies. Birth rates are multifactorial, the USA birth rate after WWII had nothing to do with genes or the environment, but plenty with society and the optimism after a glorious military victory. The declining birth rates in Japan and Western societies have more to do with education of the females and their pursuit of intellectual endeavors, not scarcity of resources. I have heard that the birth rates among Muslims is among the highest, and other religious groups Christian and Non, also are high, some have dared to correlate religious fervor/fanaticism!

There's an enormous difference, in my opinion, between individuals deciding whether to produce 0, 1, 2 or 3 children; individuals intentionally producing as many children as possible; and individuals producing children with no form of planning whatsoever.

KS, you are sowing confusion again, as is your wont. Are you saying that even though every weed is a blessing, you do look with disfavor on the latter categories of people? The discussion of weeds brings to mind this quote:

“I know there is wilde love and joy enough in the world, as there is wilde Thyme and other herbes, but we would have garden love and garden joy, of Gods owne planting.”
- Rev. Thomas Hooker (1586 – 1647)

It seems to me the old Puritan favors family planning.

Balderdash. There aren't two world views at all. Each of us is complex and multi-dimensional. We are born with a desire to look for simplification, so we have a tendency to try to collapse our many dimensions of comlexity onto a single dimension (lib/con). This is amplified in the US by the very sensible two-party tradition (sensible because it forces majority rule). But we should not let this simplification obscure our understanding of human nature.

Wait a minute, Simon. Either you're with us or you're against us. ;^)

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: uh...what? when people use the word "patriotism" today they do not in any way mean "traitor."

Jesus. That's not what I'm saying, so quit playing obtuse. The word 'patriot' in American parlance does not have to do necessarily with nationalism or national pride. It can also mean "someone who places adherence to an ideal above allegiance to his country". The point is that there is a tradition of American Patriotism that runs directly counter to the commonplace notion of patriotism. Let try another example to see if we can get this through your knobby skull. There's a famous toast written by crazy American sailor Stephen Decatur: "Our country. In her intercourse with other nations may she always be right. But our country, right or wrong." That's the patriotism you're thinking of, the kind you've been imprinted with to the extent that it's now exceedingly difficult to get across to you the idea that words can have more than one meaning. But they can! And one of the other meanings of the word 'patriotism', especially in the American context, values republicanism (among other things) above national pride or fealty. I know it will be hard

Quoting bjkeefe: Wait a minute, Simon. Either you're with us or you're against us.

;^)

And which one exactly is the axis of evil?

Hi Brendan,
I'm not really clear how your reply applies to the way I intended to use the word "tolerance". What I meant to do was to define tolerance as the refusal to use coercion to change people's minds, even when their views are wrong (or when we think they are wrong). Liberal tolerance (as opposed to mushy relativist "tolerance", which not really tolerance at all) allows the use of force to prevent actions harmful to others (including violations of their liberty). This seems to be an entirely consistent standard, something that the liberal can perfectly well apply to himself. If illiberal types try to coerce others into sharing their views, the liberal can stop them quite consistently, without stepping over the line and trying to coerce them into changing their beliefs. Their intolerance in no way requires that he step over his own line and try to force them to share his views on the matter at hand.
The tolerant person does not say "everybody is right" (someone who says that doesn't think there's really anything to tolerate). He's the person who refuses to use coercive

I have met the enemy, and he is, uh, partly me.

John, I'm at the point in the diavlog where you are expressing upset that haidt asks liberals to be the understanding ones in trying to reach some kind of consensus w/ conservatives. I don't think haidt really means that liberals have to give up their own values. I think what he mostly means is to understand what you are dealing with here. Conservatives simply aren't going to find liberal values salient. Haidt is giving you the capacity to at least understand conservatives from their own perspective. Now the question is, what can we do with this knowledge? People like Dan Kahan at the cultural cognition program at Yale is working on the same sort of things trying to figure out common ground where both sides can be happy. THere is some overlap or at least areas where the compromises are not too egregious. Haidt shows us that we really are different. I think it probably comes down to very basic social neuroscience differences. Conservatives tend to be dispositionalists and liberals situationists. The liberal theory of mind seems to have a more accessible meta-level where one can jump

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Hi Brendan,
I'm not really clear how your reply applies to the way I intended to use the word "tolerance". What I meant to do was to define tolerance as the refusal to use coercion to change people's minds, even when their views are wrong (or when we think they are wrong). [...]

Okay, I see the distinction. Curses. Foiled by polysemy again. (Thanks for the new word, Ray!)

Do American schools teach Hooker, Winthrop, and Wigglesworth?

No, I doubt it. Well, maybe at Harvard. There's a stone in Harvard yard, part of Boylston Hall, inscribed to indicate the location of Hooker's first house which is, coincidentially, about 20 feet away from Wigglesworth Hall. I didn't attend Harvard, I just know this stuff 'cause Hooker is my ancestor. There are impossibly many things for a modern student to learn. I'm waiting for a silicon chip brain implant that will hold the contents of Wikipedia.

Quoting Simon Willard: I have met the enemy, and he is, uh, partly me.

Yes, sure. But the game is to take turns. Who's turn is it to be the axis of evil?

what are you even talking about? that comment makes no sense in response to what i said. are you responding to the right post? if you disagree with something i said then you should specifically address it rather than getting really angry and insulting me. why don't you actually use the knowledge you claim to be so familiar with to actually respond by using facts and reasons. you truly sound like poser when you get really angry for no reason, infer you know about stuff I don't without actually using it to address anything I said and then post a link to some book I don't care about. which comments are inane? are they as inane as a talking point like "Every child is a blessing."?

dude, are you actually going to say anything as far as facts and figures or examples go or is that all you've got? making extremely broad inferences doesn't leave me anything to respond to. why don't you use some of the info from this amazing book to enlighten me. everyone knows poor people have kids because they need farmers and because they die a lot, need to sell them, need to be cared for when old, etc.

wow, such condescension from someone with so little to offer. anyway, this is what you said: "The definition you're using--pride in the traditions and accomplishments of people who belong to the same nation as you--fits the word 'loyalist', which remains a slur in the U.S. to the present day." and then I responded by saying it's definitely not a slur. who could see what else you could possibly be saying there.
this argument you started should make no sense, even to you, because I never said "this is the only definition of patriotism." in fact, you just made up the definition of loyalist (which is hardly relevant since no one uses that word) as far as M-W.com is concerned. all i did was give an example why one would be reasonable in being patriotic. i understand you'd like to find a use for your knowledge but it's really of no use in relation to what i said and isn't, at all, the core of what i was saying to John. here's the MW def. of patriotism:
"love for or devotion to one's country"
most importantly, since you (so generously) pointed out that words can have more than

I agree with bkjazfan to some extent. Although I love to listen to John and George I do take umbrage at their incessant, sometimes vitriolic, hatred of religion. I can understand one being put off by proselytising, but to be against religion in any form, which they both frequently admit, seems to me to be woefully wrong minded. Patriotism, like any of the isms, can be taken to extremes. There is a fine line between patriotism, nationalism, and racism; but that doesn’t mean that it’s bad to wear a flag pin, or to be proud of America’s positive contributions to the world community. I attribute John Horgan’s cynical view of patriotism to the fact that he is, in part, a “60’s throw back”…, or in other words a geriatric hippie.

One of the most tribal epithets that I have ever heard/seen during my long life is the phrase “I am a Jewish atheist”. Jonathan Haidt, a liberal, has made this very statement about himself right here on Blogginheads TV. Never let it be said that liberals are not tribal.
Apolgies in advance to Wonderment..., and any others who might be offended.

Quoting JIM3CH: One of the most tribal epithets that I have ever heard/seen during my long life is the phrase “I am a Jewish atheist”. Jonathan Haidt, a liberal, has made this very statement about himself right here on Blogginheads TV. Never let it be said that liberals are not tribal.

Apolgies in advance to Wonderment..., and any others who might be offended.

I'm mainly puzzled. What would you say about "I'm a secular Jew" or "I'm a non-observant Jew"? There are probably millions of Jews who would describe themselves in one of those ways. Are those phrases any less tribal to your mind? For that matter, is the phrase "I'm an observant Jew" any less tribal? I still haven't watched most of the diavlog yet. But I'm wondering: Was there any discussion of how the concepts tribal and tribe are to be understood? If not, how are you understanding them? Being tribal had better be more than simply identifying with a group -- since males, lawyers, members-of-families, baseball fans, academics, liberals, jazz lovers, etc. often do that too. As the terms are commonly used, 'tribe' and 'tribal' have distinctly negative connotations. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be using 'tribal' in some such negative way as well. Was

I think the term 'tribal' has been used in a rather loose way here. My interpretation is that is being used as identification with a group and a certain degree of rivalry towards those that don't belong to the group. As to whether that is negative or not, of course, is arguable, and most likely depending on the circumstances. Part of the current argument, though, seems to be about whether liberals tend to be less 'tribal' than conservatives. This follows the five dimensions identified by Haidt for liberals and conservatives. Conservatives 'scored' higher in 'loyalty to the group'. The bottom line, I think, is that these concepts are relative and the differences are mostly quantitative and not qualitative.

Ocean, Well, from watching this and other diavlogs by John and George is where I got the impression of their condescending attitudes toward religion. Granted, their stance on patriotism is a little fuzzy and I probably spoke out of turn. I am touchy on the military issue since I did serve and found it to be a good experience. Also, in the early 90's when I was having severe mental and personal problems the VA Hospital was the primary helping hand in getting me off the streets and aiding me in the rehabiliatation process. Thank you for your response, John

Quoting bkjazfan: Ocean,

Well, from watching this and other diavlogs by John and George is where I got the impression of their condescending attitudes toward religion. Granted, their stance on patriotism is a little fuzzy and I probably spoke out of turn.

I am touchy on the military issue since I did serve and found it to be a good experience. Also, in the early 90's when I was having severe mental and personal problems the VA Hospital was the primary helping hand in getting me off the streets and aiding me in the rehabiliatation process.

Thank you for your response,

John

You are welcome and thank you for following up.

As Ocean observed in her comment above, I was trying to give a common, albeit controversial, example of what I would identify as liberal tribalism. As to why I pick on the phrase “Jewish atheist”: Firstly I find that the two words together reduces the word Jew so abruptly and absolutely to its tribal meaning, free from any religious, or even historical context, and secondly because Jonathan Haidt uses the phrase. Tribalism, just like patriotism, nationalism and racism, I suppose, can have a negative sense to it. I don’t mean to imply that it is always bad. My thesis, again, is that liberals can be as tribal as conservatives. The phrase “I’m an observant Jew” sounds to me much less tribal than the other phrases that you offer. Why is that? Because, correct me if I am wrong, anyone can become an observant Jew, whereas the population of Jewish atheists is highly exclusive.

you're being condescending because you figured out that, technically, there's enough resources in Africa? wow, that's not something to be proud of. as AemJeff already pointed out right at the beginning of the thread: "By the same argument, since my glass of lemonade has not overflowed up until now, I can fit an infinite amount of lemonade in my glass. I'd be careful of accusing others of an "offense against reason," if I were you." Anyone can see that we can cram billions more onto the continent. So, the only definition for overpopulation that would have any use is that there's too many people effectively for what's currently available. Just like we could fill the earth with billions more deer but instead, when we start hitting too many of them on the road, we call it over population. Otherwise the concept of overpopulation wouldn't exist at all because you could just keep saying there's technically more available. Stephen Hawking did a semi-famous calculation where he computed how many people it would take to completely fill the earth shoulder to shoulder. By your logic you could just say "Yeah, well there's water under

Quoting JIM3CH: ....Never let it be said that liberals are not tribal.

that's actually a really good point to make. I haven't read the whole thread so maybe someone already said this but tribalism definitely has a good side. It's what provides a barrier between rogue states and non, good citizens and criminals, me and Conn Carroll/Jonah Goldberg....
what if there were only one country on Earth? then you would be subject to their laws and values and you couldn't move if you didn't like them. in fact, that's pretty much the point of being liberal or a vegetarian or whatever...you're doing things your own way. It can provide freedom!

Quoting cragger: I suspect that research would reveal a good case that human population has essentially reflected the carrying capacity of the various regions of the earth for most of human history. Recall for example Dr. Homer-Dixon's analysis of the collapse of the Roman Empire, which could no longer produce enough food to maintain the complexity of its civilization with so many members who were not involved with food production, given the agriculture of the time. (Can't recall the title of that BH episode right off.)

It is only recently that reliable birth control has been a factor in limiting population size. Previously, premature death by various causes was the significant limiting factor as it remains in many parts of the world today.

Have you read Homer-Dixon's book? It's really terrific. Blew my mind. (Thanks BHtv!) I think everybody agrees there's a point where there's too many people on Earth. Even if you think 7 billion is peachy, you'd have to have doubts about 70 billion.

Quoting JIM3CH: As Ocean observed in her comment above, I was trying to give a common, albeit controversial, example of what I would identify as liberal tribalism.

Yes, sorry, seeing the diavlog first would have made all the difference. I was just thinking back to the last time you raised questions about the phrase "atheist Jew" (to which I responded), and thinking you were just making some point about Jewish tribalism. My own view is that liberals are obviously tribal -- i.e., in whatever sense conservatives are -- so I don't think one needs to go far to look for examples. Take our own beloved Gang of Twelve! Or notice how George told John to turn down his ingroup/loyalty slider, but then had his own jacked up throughout much of the rest of the diavlog. Or take the Netroots. Or the elite liberal media. :-)

As to why I pick on the phrase “Jewish atheist”: Firstly I find that the two words together reduces the word Jew so abruptly and absolutely to its tribal meaning, free from any religious, or even historical context, and secondly because Jonathan Haidt uses the phrase.

I prefer 'ethnic' or 'cultural' to 'tribal' here, but I don't have much to say now about why.

Tribalism, just like

Quoting mvantony: You interested? :-)

Actually I am a Christian, and therefore have my own tribal baggage to carry around. Thanks anyway. :-)

Quoting JIM3CH: Actually I am a Christian, and therefore have my own tribal baggage to carry around. Thanks anyway. :-)

For some reason I was assuming you are an atheist. Hope I didn't offend.

Despite my politics, every time I buy Kellogg's Corn Flakes I smile, just like George. Good one, George.

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: that's an honorable thing to say but the reality is that almost every underdeveloped country, especially places like Bangladesh, Nigeria, India, etc. just don't have the physical or financial structure in place to support the amount of people they have. to me, that qualifies as overpopulation.

This is a silly way to define overpopulation (perhaps there is no non-silly way to do so, but that doesn't make this definition any less ridiculous). I suppose that, under this definition, the problem with Ukraine in the 1930s was overpopulation. It wasn't that Stalin's awful policies had caused widespread famine. No, the problem was there were too many people. I mean, it's obvious. Just look at all the suffering. Q.E.D. Likewise, presumably one would have to conclude that places like South Korea were overpopulated 50 years ago and now are not, despite the fact that there are a lot more people in South Korea now than there were 50 years ago. Paradoxically, then, population growth seems to be associated with a reduction in overpopulation.

Quoting mvantony: For some reason I was assuming you are an atheist. Hope I didn't offend.

Not in the least.

Actually I am a Christian, and therefore have my own tribal baggage to carry around. Thanks anyway. :-)

Actually, that's the problem, Jim, which I may have mentioned last time around. You are seeing Judaism through a Christian lens. People don't usually say, "I'm Christian" unless they believe in Christian tenets. Jews, on the other hand, are literally a tribe. If you think of Jews as you think of the Cheyenne or the Apache, you'll have a better grasp of the issue. (I hope I'm not repeating myself from last time.) If you met a Cheyenne surgeon in New York City, and he mentioned to you that he's an atheist (or a Christian), his identity would make perfect sense to you. It's unlikely that you'd write a post saying, "Hey, I met this really weird guy who claims to be a Cheyenne atheist." You're only finding it weird with Jews because you were taught growing up that Judaism is a religion, like Christianity. As for the positive/negative aspects of tribalism, I don't have a strong opinion either. Extreme tribalism is one of the worst qualities of people and the basis of all war. It's exclusionary (white folks in the Segregationist South) or simply "stupid" (as John

nice try. what is wrong with you people? I can't believe you so smugly dismiss the most obvious, basic definition of overpopulation there is. Thank you wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
please update wikipedia with your definition of overpopulation since you haven't shared it yet.
dude, read the first few paragraphs of this. I can't believe I actually have to try to explain this let alone put up with the turned up noses. have you seen pictures of India's slums?
um, the cause of the Ukranians' plight was probably Stalin. s. korea was just poor. as is vietnam today; they're functioning but poor. their living standard is low but sustainable.
god, next i'm gonna have to explain the earth is round...

Quoting Wonderment: If you met a Cheyenne surgeon in New York City, and he mentioned to you that he's an atheist (or a Christian), his identity would make perfect sense to you. It's unlikely that you'd write a post saying, "Hey, I met this really weird guy who claims to be a Cheyenne atheist."

This seems to be a very apropos example. I can think of no group of people who would be more unlikely to consider themselves atheists than indigenous Americans. Were I to meet a surgeon of Cheyenne descent who happened to confide in me that he were an atheist, I would in fact find it strange. I realize that you are simply trying to point out to me that a tribe is a tribe is a tribe. But an atheist of Cheyenne descent is, to me, as discordant as an atheist of Jewish descent.

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: please update wikipedia with your definition of overpopulation since you haven't shared it yet.

I don't consider overpopulation to be a terribly useful concept. If you want to use the definition you gave earlier, you're free to do so. But you should remember that, under your definition, the fact that a given area is overpopulated tells us nothing about whether increases in population in that area are good or bad (indeed, given the long term correlation between population growth and improvements in living standards, one might see population growth as a means of alleviating overpopulation, rather than of exacerbating it).

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: have you seen pictures of India's slums?

Sure. But as I said, looking at pictures of Indian slums no more proves that there are too many people in India than looking at pictures of the Ukrainian famine would prove that Ukraine was overpopulated in the 1930s.

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: um, the cause of the Ukranians' plight was probably Stalin.

No kidding. That was precisely my point. The problem in Ukraine in the 1930s wasn't overpopulation. It was bad policies. Likewise, the problem in places like India isn't that there are just too many people to be sustained

"the fact that a given area is overpopulated tells us nothing about whether increases in population in that area are good or bad" I'm pretty sure the word "overpopulated" tells us plenty...it's overpopulated. "...that there are just too many people to be sustained on a given area of land." hey, a breakthrough! "There's nothing magical about India that prevents the same from being true there as well. " what you're essentially saying is "if everything were working well then...everything would be fine." it's kinda like saying: "I wish it were 7 o'clock."
it really is of no use. as i've argued with the other guy in this thread, everyone knows that we can technically support billions more people on the earth of we can only get our resource allocation corrected. but as of right now many places on earth (like Lagos) are overpopulated. otherwise there's no definition of overpopulation at all. it's just "some day things will be fine." you can't make no judgment about it at all, otherwise there'd be no reason to keep track of populations. the why is irrelevant. if resources are outstripped because of bad policies, which is almost always

"... one might see population growth as a means of alleviating overpopulation, rather than of exacerbating it ..."

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: everyone knows that we can technically support billions more people on the earth of we can only get our resource allocation corrected. but as of right now many places on earth (like Lagos) are overpopulated. otherwise there's no definition of overpopulation at all. it's just "some day things will be fine." you can't make no judgment about it at all, otherwise there'd be no reason to keep track of populations.

Arguing that we have to define overpopulation in a certain way because otherwise it wouldn't be an important concept doesn't cut much ice with me, as I don't consider it an important concept. Thinking about social problems in terms of "overpopulation" will only lead to silly and or harmful responses (for details, I would recommend Matthew Connelly's book Fatal Misconception). It's as if people looked at the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina, and concluded that we needed to send condoms to New Orleans to deal with the overpopulation problem that had suddenly developed there.

I've been following this thread and I can't quite figure what your argument is. There are countries where the lack of resources and wealth determine that, besides whatever potential productivity the land may have, any further population growth will not be sustainable. Some countries have already reached that point. Again, even if there are untapped resources, the reality is that whatever wealth they have isn't enough for everybody. This seems to me is a 'relative' overpopulation, meaning that there are too many people for the available resources (regardless of why resources aren't available). The more 'absolute' concept of overpopulation would refer to the number of people in a region that can't be sustained even when resources are at their optimal availability. I didn't see what aspects you include when you talk about 'sustainability'. I would imagine you are including food, but also health, education, and a reasonable quality of life. Is that right?

i don't really care how specifically it's defined. the problem is that you are implying it may not even exist! you don't consider it an important concept? -->have you heard of China's "One Child" policy????<--
you may want to mull that over for a while 'cuz I'm pretty sure the Chinese gov't thought it was pretty important
also, the hurricane katrina analogy doesn't really make any sense at all. that fact that i'm getting support on this from others while being, pretty much, one of the least liked people on this board does not bode well for you

Mr. Ocean, You are treating wealth and other resources as if they were fixed quantities, when in fact they aren't. More people may mean more mouths to feed, but it also means more people who can labor to produce food or to produce other things that can be exchanged for food, etc. If a country is set up such that people are able to make productive use of their talents and abilities, then more people will serve to increase the amount of wealth and progress that the society enjoys. On the other hand, if a society is structured so that people are not able to do this, then life is going to be hard no matter how few people there are. If you waved a magic wand tomorrow and made half the people in India disappear, this would not significantly improve the standard of living of those who remained in anything but the extreme short term (I'm talking weeks). For people in a given area to have enough resources, it is not necessary that they be able to produce all of those resources within that

Quoting Blackadder: You are treating wealth and other resources as if they were fixed quantities, when in fact they aren't.

Some are, some aren't. Arable land has a finite limit. Available energy at sustainable cost is a complex problem whose solution doesn't obviously arise from throwing resources at it. Crowding is an issue. You're arguing a strawman, and deeply oversimplifying the argument against your point of view. (Ocean, I hope you don't mind me jumping in here!)

I have heard of China's one child policy. I think it is horrible, not only from a moral point of view (forced abortions and all that) but also from a purely practical one. Over the coming decades China is probably going to pay dearly for it. (I mean, seriously, are you really arguing that the Chinese government is behind something, therefore it must be a good idea? Have you never heard of the Great Leap Forward?) Both China's one child policy and earlier programs in India and elsewhere are detailed in the Fatal Misconception book I referenced earlier.

Quoting AemJeff: Some are, some aren't. Arable land has a finite limit. Available energy at sustainable cost is a complex problem whose solution doesn't obviously arise from throwing resources at it. Crowding is an issue.

And don't forget water supply. This is seen by many as already being a major problem in various regions, and not just southern Californians not being able to wash their cars. We're talking a reason to go to war here.

Quoting bjkeefe: And don't forget water supply. This is seen by many as already being a major problem in various regions, and not just southern Californians not being able to wash their cars. We're talking a reason to go to war here.

You're right, that's a primary concern. Assuming that everything is infinitely fungible makes it easy to argue that anything is doable.

I love this - liberalism as thoughtful, idealistic and intellectual opposed to conservative "yahoos" - followed by exulting over Obama "kicking McCain's ass." Can these guys hear themselves?

Yes, please elaborate. I think I understand the reasoning you present. However, even in an optimally functional society where wealth is produced and retained within its boundaries, I imagine you are not suggesting unlimited population growth. One can conceptualize an optimal population size, where there's enough human power for all the necessary functions of the community, but not that many that the natural resources, which are not unlimited, would start to be scarce, (as it's been pointed out by Aemjeff and bjkeefe in their comments). So your reasoning works better to say that in a country where there are serious sociopolitical problems, a smaller population doesn't solve those problems. It doesn't mean that the opposite is true, that a larger population would solve problems. The density of population in a given area isn't an essential issue. Of course, there's exchange between urban and rural areas, different regions, etc. The total number is what's important.

no, not saying it's flawless...saying it was an attempt to help what? overpopulation!

There's no fixed limit to arable land. Whether a given bit of land is arable or not is a matter of technological advancement more than anything else. Much of Europe, for example, was not arable until the invention of the plow because the soil was too thick. The amount of food capable of being produced on a given plot of land will also vary greatly based on technology. But even if you want to put an upper limit on the amount of arable land on the planet earth, it's clear that we are nowhere near that limit (for details, see Ultimate Resource 2, chapters 8 and 29). It's the same story for energy. We could spend a long time arguing about what is sustainable and whatnot, but the truth is that even if there is some finite limit to energy resources we aren't anywhere near it now. Certainly the fact that energy is a complicated problem doesn't mean that India is overpopulated. On crowding, Japan has a higher population density than India and the U.S. population density is higher than Africa, so I don't really see this as a major issue.

For water, see chapter 10 of Ultimate Resource 2. Even absent a technological breakthrough, we can get clean drinking water via desalination at a cost that, while not cheap, is not high enough that it would be a real resource constraint given the right policies.

Quoting Blackadder: There's no fixed limit to arable land. Whether a given bit of land is arable or not is a matter of technological advancement more than anything else. Much of Europe, for example, was not arable until the invention of the plow because the soil was too thick. The amount of food capable of being produced on a given plot of land will also vary greatly based on technology. But even if you want to put an upper limit on the amount of arable land on the planet earth, it's clear that we are nowhere near that limit (for details, see Ultimate Resource 2, chapters 8 and 29).

It's the same story for energy. We could spend a long time arguing about what is sustainable and whatnot, but the truth is that even if there is some finite limit to energy resources we aren't anywhere near it now. Certainly the fact that energy is a complicated problem doesn't mean that India is overpopulated.

On crowding, Japan has a higher population density than India and the U.S. population density is higher than Africa, so I don't really see this as a

You cut me to the quick. Seriously, though, it's a historical fact that as the population of various countries has grown so has the standard of living. This isn't just a lucky coincidence either. More people means more minds working to solve various human difficulties and more hands working to implement these solutions. It means more potential customers for goods and services, creating economies of scope and scale that wouldn't exist with fewer people (wouldn't bloggingheads exist if the U.S. population was a tenth its current size? Doubt it). Read the second part of Ultimate Resource 2, and then we can talk.

Quoting Blackadder: You cut me to the quick.

Seriously, though, it's a historical fact that as the population of various countries has grown so has the standard of living. This isn't just a lucky coincidence either. More people means more minds working to solve various human difficulties and more hands working to implement these solutions. It means more potential customers for goods and services, creating economies of scope and scale that wouldn't exist with fewer people (wouldn't bloggingheads exist if the U.S. population was a tenth its current size? Doubt it). Read the second part of Ultimate Resource 2, and then we can talk.

Apparently you've read a book. You might want to try one or two more.

Quoting Blackadder: For water, see chapter 10 of Ultimate Resource 2. Even absent a technological breakthrough, we can get clean drinking water via desalination at a cost that, while not cheap, is not high enough that it would be a real resource constraint given the right policies.

That's a lot of hand-waving which fails to motivate me to read the book. As far as I understand the current state of desalination, "while not cheap" and "given the right policies" put a whole jar of Vaseline on the lens. Fundamentally, it takes a lot of energy to make seawater fresh, and that means it's always going to be expensive, especially as continued growing populations demand energy for other uses. Evidence of this can be seen by southern California's preference for crazy schemes of importing water from other states rather than moving ahead with desalination in a big way. Look also at the Middle East -- they're swimming in money (and oil) in many desert countries, but desalination hasn't come close to addressing their water shortage problems. Granted, both regions use this technology to some extent, but it hasn't become the solution. I'll also grant that there are doubtless

Quoting AemJeff: Explain to me how you increase arable land area over available land area. After you're done with that, please tell me why if we're nowhere near the limit of usable energy resources, why energy costs are as volatile as they are.

Well, if you really wanted to increase arable land over available land area, there are ways you could do it (it's possible to grow crops in an indoor controlled environment, and we long ago discovered how to make buildings that are more than one story tall). But there's no need to resort to anything quite so sci-fi any time soon. It's not like all the available land is already occupied and we're growing crops on every single acre of available space. There's plenty of potentially arable land that isn't being utilized to its full capacity right now. On energy, what you should do is use google to find a chart of oil prices adjusted for inflation for as long a period as you can (I'd provide a link, but apparently the forum doesn't allow for that). If you do so, you'll see that the

Are you the author of the book or are you getting commission?

Well, if you want specific figures, Simon calculates that in 1992 the added yearly cost for a typical D.C. resident of switching to all desalinated water was $500 a year. That's not cheap by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not the kind of astronomical figure that would mean we couldn't use desalination to provide all our water needs if we really had to. And keep in mind, $500 a year is an upper limit. In practice the cost would never be that high since a) we don't, in fact, have to rely only on desalinated water, and b) additional technological innovations and efficiency improvements would help to bring the cost down over time. By the way, if you ever think that I'm being too vague or am oversimplifying a particular issue, it's probably because this kind of forum imposes severe space constraints, and I figure that anyone who is really interested can go read the sources I cite and/or other material readily available on the internet or at your local library.

Quoting Blackadder: You cut me to the quick.

And I'm tempted to repeat the link for this:

Seriously, though, it's a historical fact that as the population of various countries has grown so has the standard of living.

This is anything but a fact for many regions in the world. It is also certainly not causal in almost every case where the SOL has increased, either. You can think of a few cases where a locality gaining a critical mass of population does mean that things get better -- boom towns, even the whole continental US for a short while -- but these few exceptions ignore the reality that those locations had plenty of room and resources to support the growth, and they do not support your general claim.

If it seems like I'm citing a single work over an over, it's because Simon's book is a good collection of data and evidence on a wide variety of these issues. If you want me to recommend other works that deal with similar subjects, I can do that.

Okay, I'll bite. Name the country or countries that have a lower standard of living now than they did when they had a population half its current size?

Neither. I just tend to be a bit compulsive about these sorts of things. As long as people aren't being rude to me, and seem at least marginally open to what I say, I feel like I can't just let their questions or challenges go unanswered (at least where I think I have a response). As quaint as it sounds, I like sharing the truth (as I understand it in my own limited way) with people. I will, however, make this my last comment of the evening, as I can sense that we're approaching that threshold, and I do have to work tomorrow.

Quoting Blackadder: Neither. I just tend to be a bit compulsive about these sorts of things. As long as people aren't being rude to me, and seem at least marginally open to what I say, I feel like I can't just let their questions or challenges go unanswered (at least where I think I have a response). As quaint as it sounds, I like sharing the truth (as I understand it in my own limited way) with people. I will, however, make this my last comment of the evening, as I can sense that we're approaching that threshold, and I do have to work tomorrow.

I looked at Julian Simon's response to criticism of his book. It looks like it was quite provocative and widely criticized. Among the criticisms I saw that it's written from an economist's perspective. Biologists had a very poor opinion of the book, because it doesn't really take into account environment and biology. I just read that very quickly. Perhaps in the future you may be able to present your case for discussion again. Thank you for sharing your views.

Quoting Blackadder: Okay, I'll bite. Name the country or countries that have a lower standard of living now than they did when they had a population half its current size?

I can't do that off the top of my head, and I am not willing to put the effort in right now to answer that precise a question (comparing to one-half the current population), but I would be amazed if this weren't true for many countries, in Africa and southern Asia, especially, and some in South and Central America. Probably a look at this page would give plenty of examples (look for the red triangles), although I'm willing to stipulate that not every one of the countries whose SOL is going down can point to growing population as the sole cause.

Gee, the more people we have, the higher living standards get, and the more people we can support, and the richer we will all be ... what a concept. Sounds like a cure for the financial crisis if I ever heard one. Infinite population, infinite wealth, and a darn good time if we just get nekkid and get busy! So sad that the argument is completely backward and that certain developments related to living standards, like improvements in agriculture, occasionally occur and permit us to sustain a higher population. Arguing the reverse is tantamount to noticing that it is warmer during the day than at night, and concluding warmth causes the sun to rise.

Quoting Ocean: Are you the author of the book or are you getting commission?

That's about how I feel. Thanks to you guys for taking over...this guy is incorrigible - no intention of being objective. Maybe we're talking to a robot!? *Update* I looked at "Ultimate Resource 2" also...all I can do is recommend Gary Zukov's "Dancing Wu Li Masters" as a follow up Totally hardcore stuff, man! <--that's supposed to be a joke.

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: Totally hardcore stuff, man! <--that's supposed to be a joke.

Thank you for the courtesy. I'm starting to get used to gender 'confusion'.

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: ...all I can do is recommend Gary Zukov's "Dancing Wu Li Masters" as a follow up

Nice.

Quoting bjkeefe: Nice.

Perhaps fedorovingtonboop and you can comment on the book first, since you both seem to be so enthusiastic about it.

Quoting Blackadder: I have heard of China's one child policy. I think it is horrible, not only from a moral point of view (forced abortions and all that) but also from a purely practical one. Over the coming decades China is probably going to pay dearly for it. (I mean, seriously, are you really arguing that the Chinese government is behind something, therefore it must be a good idea? Have you never heard of the Great Leap Forward?)

Both China's one child policy and earlier programs in India and elsewhere are detailed in the Fatal Misconception book I referenced earlier.

Reality check? When will the Chinese "pay" for their "mistake", when the US defaults on the loans?

Quoting SkepticDoc: Reality check?

When will the Chinese "pay" for their "mistake", when the US defaults on the loans?

They'll pay for it in a couple of ways. First, as we've seen in places like Japan and Europe, and as we're going to see in the U.S., there are huge costs that arise when you have a lot more old people in a country than young people. Rich countries will probably be able to handle this transition, albeit with difficulty, because they have the resources to do so. Because of the one Child policy, however, China is likely to have to face some of these challenges before most of its population has reached a western standard of living. However, the real problem (in my opinion) is likely to be the gender imbalance the one child policy has created. When you have a lot of young men running around unable to find a woman, things are liable to get ugly.

bjkeefe, I don't blame you for not wanting to spend your time looking at demographic data for South Asia, etc. If you did, however, I guarantee that you would be amazed. For example, I took a peak at the "Demographics of Cambodia" page at Wikipedia, thinking that since Pol Pot killed a quarter of the population in the 1970s and the country has only recently recovered that would be the most obvious counter-example to my claim. Amazingly, the population of Cambodia has roughly doubled since 1975 (when the Khmer Rouge took over), from 7.3 million to 14.2 million. In 1970, life expectancy in Cambodia was around 45 years. Today it is 61.7 years.

Rational behavior dictates that: If children are likely to die before reaching maturity
-and-
Children are the classical form of social security Then over reproduction is correct

Interesting discussion. Fascinating topic. The Ultimate Resource argument has been made by others as well and has some compelling aspects to it. There is a lot of data out there on this subject, much of which contradicts the received wisdom about population and demography, and all of which is highly worthwhile reading if population and demography figure into one's political thinking. Thinking broadly and openmindedly about the implications of the data is also a worthwhile exercise. Some implications are quite counterintuitive, which explains some of the widely divergent opinions on this thread. Saturday NYTimes had an op-ed about the social and economic implications of Russia's declining population. It was titled "Rising Ambitions, Sinking Population". Worth reading. Another book worth reading: Bare Branches: The Security Implications of Asia's Excess Male Population (recommended on a previous BHTV session about muslim women and head scarves). Confirms BlackAdder's point (also made by Bob Wright and others) that a world with too many unmarried males as in China can be VERY unstable and problematic. Blackadder - I'd love some recommended reading on the topic, in addition to Fatal Misconceptions and Ultimate Resource 2.

Quoting Blackadder: bjkeefe,

I don't blame you for not wanting to spend your time looking at demographic data for South Asia, etc. If you did, however, I guarantee that you would be amazed. For example, I took a peak at the "Demographics of Cambodia" page at Wikipedia, thinking that since Pol Pot killed a quarter of the population in the 1970s and the country has only recently recovered that would be the most obvious counter-example to my claim. Amazingly, the population of Cambodia has roughly doubled since 1975 (when the Khmer Rouge took over), from 7.3 million to 14.2 million. In 1970, life expectancy in Cambodia was around 45 years. Today it is 61.7 years.

One datum does not a theory support. I will grant that it's possible to find instances where population increase and SOL increase are correlated. I am not quite as much of a doomsayer as some over-population worriers; i.e., I am not saying that every time population increases in some locality, everything immediately gets worse. (I'll remark as an aside that the life expectancy increase in Cambodia between the 1960s and today probably had at least a little something to do with the end of the Vietnam War; i.e., for you to imply that

look george we live in a center right country, and radicaly changing that is not a feature of national elections If you want to complain that obama isn't doing enough to advance liberal perceptions do it while he's in office

Quoting Ocean: Perhaps fedorovingtonboop and you can comment on the book first, since you both seem to be so enthusiastic about it.

It's been a long time since I read The DWLM, but as I remember it, it was an early pinnacle of the Woo relating quantum mechanics and things like free will.

Quoting bjkeefe: It's been a long time since I read The DWLM, but as I remember it, it was an early pinnacle of the Woo relating quantum mechanics and things like free will.

So, do you recommend it?

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: I wish John hadn't then followed Haidt in confusing liberal tolerance with moral relativism. Tolerance is NOT NOT NOT the view that every view is right!!!!! It is the view that evidence and argument should be the main means of "suppressing" wrong views, and that force can be used against such views or rather the practical application of such views) in only very limited circumstances -- where there is strong evidence that a non-consenting party will be harmed. There is NO CONTRADICTION -- NO WAY, NO HOW -- between saying that and saying that liberalism really is the correct moral view.
LIberalism does not compel the liberal to believe that theocrats are equally right. Nor does it compel the liberal state to do nothing to prevent the theocrats from taking power. It can't prevent theocratic views from being expressed (except where they would be an incitement to riot), and it's true that the theocrats wouldn't reciprocate if they were in power. But if the theocrats (or other illiberal types) are attempting to use force to compel others to accept their beliefs, then the liberal can COMPLETELY CONSISTENTLY use state power to interfere with such a violation of the

How about a diavlog between John Gray and Bob Wright on the concept of non zero sumness and the direction of human destiny?

Quoting Blackadder: (I'd provide a link, but apparently the forum doesn't allow for that)

No, the forum does allow links. You can just paste a URL into your post, if you want, and the forum software will convert it to a clickable URL. Or you can use the little "Insert Link" icon on the toolbar directly above the window where you type your posts. The insert link icon looks like this:

Quoting Ocean: So, do you recommend it?

Only if you want to read something that's howlingly ludicrous. Or, more politely, entertaining in the way dorm room philosophical discussions can be, post-bongathon. The beginning, IIRC, was not the worst "physics for poets" introduction to basic quantum theory that I've ever read, but even that part is probably not worth your time at this point, being that it was written nearly thirty years ago.

Quoting bjkeefe: Only if you want to read something that's howlingly ludicrous. Or, more politely, entertaining in the way dorm room philosophical discussions can be, post-bongathon.

The beginning, IIRC, was not the worst "physics for poets" introduction to basic quantum theory that I've ever read, but even that part is probably not worth your time at this point, being that it was written nearly thirty years ago.

Thank you, Brendan. The level of sarcasm, inside talk, deliberate confusion and hostility in this forum escapes my understanding. I joined this group as an active participant with the hope of exchanging ideas intelligently with others, learn, and explore a group where I could find my 'peers'. In my everyday life I don't come across people with whom to discuss a wide variety of topics with some depth. I've had the opportunity to learn, both from diavloggers and commenters. I have started to understand debating in a format that is very 'alien' to me. I have found people that are ideologically very similar with whom I enjoy interacting and confirming my own thoughts and ideas. I have been challenged by what on surface appears to be an opposite view and after discussion and some processing, ending up finding

Quoting Ocean: The level of sarcasm, inside talk, deliberate confusion and hostility in this forum escapes my understanding. I joined this group as an active participant with the hope of exchanging ideas intelligently with others, learn, and explore a group where I could find my 'peers'. [...]

I am certainly determined to continue watching diavlogs and perhaps reading some of the comments in the forum. But I believe that my active participation as a commenter has to stop, at least for some time.

Sorry to hear that you feel this way. I apologize for my contribution to that. I plead more fondness for snark and playing the dozens than you have, evidently, but I'll grant it can go too far. I would also say that I think we're in the silly season right now, waiting for this election to take place and be done with, and that better discussion and debate will likely return afterward. So, I hope you'll bear that in mind.

Quoting Ocean: Whatever the party is, I'm not part of it, so it seems more reasonable to stop commenting for now. I don't want to keep interrupting others' conversations. It is to no one's benefit.

I beg to differ. You have a warm and wry style and your smart posts embody a perspective unlike what any of the rest of us brings to the "table" here. My own view of "interruptions" in a threaded text medium such as this forum is that unless somebody is being pretty deliberately rude and unhelpful, it's really hard to define any contribution as an "interruption." Unlike speech, in which everybody participates in real time and where there's really only room for a single voice at any given time, every contribution here can be considered on its own, and one can choose whether to follow up. I think that the more disparate voices we have here, the better. There's a bit of gladiator in many of us. Contentiousness is certainly one of the features of conversations inhabited by so many opinionated people. And rivalries and petty fights and a degree of unpleasantness. That's just one spice in the stew. There's always a

Ocean, my suggestion would be that you simply be more selective in choosing who to debate and on what topics. I hope you won't desert us entirely, because I always enjoy your comments. PS have you guys heard about that great book "Ultimate Resource2?" ;-) I thought this was one of the more enjoyable Sci Sat's in a while. Especially the comparison of the settings on John/George's personal, moral EQ's.

Quoting AemJeff: I beg to differ. You have a warm and wry style and your smart posts embody a perspective unlike what any of the rest of us brings to the "table" here.

I want to second that. Well said, Jeff. Ocean, you're a valued member of the forum. I enjoy your posts immensely, and I know others do, too. I hope you'll decide to stick around.

Quoting AemJeff: My own view of "interruptions" [is that] it's really hard to define any contribution as an "interruption." ... [E]very contribution here can be considered on its own, and one can choose whether to follow up. I think that the more disparate voices we have here, the better.

Exactly. There are no interruptions here, and there are no private conversations. No one should hesitate to jump in and reply to any comment by any other user. This is true of forums generally. And just like everyone has the freedom to respond to anyone else, we all have the right to IGNORE people we don't want to talk to, as well. So if you "interrupt" a thread, people can just blow you off if they don't want to respond. If you look through the threads, in fact, most posts are ignored.

Quoting AemJeff: There's a bit of gladiator in many of

Quoting ChrisCatanese: look george we live in a center right country ...

Guess it depends on how you define "center right," but this tidbit may be of interest to you:

Despite repeated attempts by the McCain campaign to raise fears about the specter of one-party Democratic rule in Washington, only 34 percent of voters say they think Obama is too liberal, while a majority, 56 percent, say they think Obama's views on major issues are "about right."

The rest.

Quoting TwinSwords: People talk about wanting the forum to be a place for highbrow discourse, not partisan bickering. It can never be one or the other. The forum attracts both types of people; those wanting to have serious discussion of serious ideas, and those wanting to argue with their opponents.

Just for the sake of clarity, I want to say that I don't think there's any reason to assume that one person can't embody both of those traits.

Quoting Ocean: ....Whatever the party is, I'm not part of it, so it seems more reasonable to stop commenting for now. I don't want to keep interrupting others' conversations. It is to no one's benefit.

Ocean, please cheer up! I hope my Gary Zukov joke wasn't the source of all this. I didn't respond right away cuz I went to bed right after posting and then was at work all day...definitely wasn't ignoring or poking fun at you. Maybe we were all up too late anyway....
I was trying to imply that "Ultimate Resource 2" was about as intellectually advanced as the said faux science writer and the joke is that he went on Opera and soon after there came to be "Quantum Mechanics Lite."....basically "science" for new agers. It seemed like the same cult-like writing. Please feel free to interrupt any conversation at any time...I don't care at all if people gang up on me and obviously like it if they help. Keep posting! (Also, I think I remember someone saying you're a girl so if you are and I mistakenly call you "guy" I don't mean it.)

Quoting Ocean: The level of sarcasm, inside talk, deliberate confusion and hostility in this forum escapes my understanding.

I joined this group as an active participant with the hope of exchanging ideas intelligently with others, learn, and explore a group where I could find my 'peers'. In my everyday life I don't come across people with whom to discuss a wide variety of topics with some depth.

Why is it important to figure it all out?
Take a break, sure... But please return. (Imo) Your presence is an asset on this forum. It seems that you bring the same high level of honesty and intellect to each and every thread. Some threads fray and require skepticism. After all, who could possibly make sense of kidneystones?
I would further hope that you stay to puzzle some of your doubts out.
And then you might kindly offer a theory that fills in some of the blanks. Here's hoping,
graz

Just wanted to note that I LOVED George's "Architects of Fear". If you find conspiracy theories amusing, definitely read it. It's a little dated, but still an excellent illustration of our desperate tendency to imagine connections that don't exist.

Quoting AemJeff: Just for the sake of clarity, I want to say that I don't think there's any reason to assume that one person can't embody both of those traits.

LOL! I thought the exact same thing when I re-read my post. I made it seem like there were two distinct groups.

Quoting AemJeff: [...]

Not for the first time, Jeff said it better than I could. So, read his words again.

Quoting Blackadder: Arguing that we have to define overpopulation in a certain way because otherwise it wouldn't be an important concept doesn't cut much ice with me, as I don't consider it an important concept.

Thinking about social problems in terms of "overpopulation" will only lead to silly and or harmful responses (for details, I would recommend Matthew Connelly's book Fatal Misconception). It's as if people looked at the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina, and concluded that we needed to send condoms to New Orleans to deal with the overpopulation problem that had suddenly developed there.

This is a classic example of two sides talking past each other. One one hand it's true that the planet could provide enough food for everyone -- indeed, for more people than we have today. That's just a simple fact; nothing controversial about it at all. Blackadder is right: the problem is the policies, the distribution, how resources are allocated, not merely and solely the size of the population. On the other hand, it is clearly and indisputably the case that larger populations are harder to feed, and that as populations grow, so do the challenges we face to

i appreciate your attempt to reconcile but that's not totally accurate. we've already conceded that there's no way he can be wrong but the problem is that he's saying that our argument doesn't even exist! that there's no such thing as overpopulation at all. overpopulation is overpopulation regardless of the "rating" of the food, etc. distribution system. whether they're great or not so great, the pop. is till out stripping the resources. essentially, my point to him was how could we know there was a need for "better allocation of resources" if they weren't insufficient in the first place. his theory can't really exist without ours becoming true first.
so yes, each would be only part of the story if he would admit our part existed at all.
i believe an ENV studies teacher of mine had a definition for people who think that technology can solve any and all problems....it's what the French call an "Idon'tknowwhat." really, there's a word for them but i can't remember it. i'll bet it's in my trusty "Ultimate Resource 2" glossary...hmmmm, let me see here.....

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: ... really, there's a word for them but i can't remember it. i'll bet it's in my trusty "Ultimate Resource 2" glossary...hmmmm, let me see here.....

f.boop: On a roll!

Quoting bjkeefe: One datum does not a theory support.

Well, okay. But presumably it's better than no datum, which is what you have offered so far.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'll remark as an aside that the life expectancy increase in Cambodia between the 1960s and today probably had at least a little something to do with the end of the Vietnam War.

The Demographics of Cambodia page gives life expectancy in 1959 as being lower than in 1970, so I don't think the Vietnam war is a plausible explanation here.

Quoting bjkeefe: At any rate, I remain convinced that between pollution (including climate change) and the constant military tension in response to competition over scarce and dwindling resources, adding a lot more people to the planet, particularly in specific regions, is a recipe for severe unhappiness. If you hope to change my mind about this, you'll have to explain all those red-triangled countries on that Wikipedia page I linked to above.

As I look at the page to which you linked, I see that the first country listed with a red triangle is Luxembourg. A clear example of an overpopulated and war ravaged country if I've ever seen one. Actually, as I look at the

before I respond, I should confess I only skimmed the posts on this thread, and probably missed more than a few, so I apologize if I've missed something essential. I think I got the essence of the two sides of the argument, however, and the thing I want to emphasize is that it's awfully damned convenient for capitalists and agribusiness to insist the problem is large populations and not systems (economic, political) that are designed to create scarcity in certain socieites. It's important for people to realize the problem isn't (strictly speaking) too many people. The problem is that we have chosen to let people starve and suffer malnutrition — for reasons of ideology. A good example is when a large economic power compels the elites in a small Central American nation to stop using farm land for crops that will be locally consumed, and the land instead is turned over to coffee production, the profits from which benefit only a tiny elite in the 3rd world. There are hundreds of other examples.

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: i appreciate your attempt to reconcile but that's not totally accurate. we've already conceded that there's no way he can be wrong but

Quoting bjkeefe: f.boop: On a roll!

thanks, buddy I try my best....

Ocean, I'll throw in another unrequested two cents worth, and join in saying that I've found your contributions here to be honest and interesting and would be sorry to see you go, but that is a decision for you. It's your time and energy. I cannot suggest that you do or do not continue to post. If you do chose to do so but have found it frustrating at times it may help to remind yourself that you aren't obligated to respond to every thread or response to your posts, and that a lot of folks eventually decide that there are some people that they are happier ignoring, rather than continually trying to refute or debate. The internet is a forum for anyone, including those who are angry and hostile, irreducably partisan, and/or closed-minded. Ignoring them doesn't mean accepting their arguments, accepting any insults, or admitting your viewpoint is wrong, just that you aren't willing to dedicate your life to endless and often unproductive arguments using a medium that as you note is more limited and time consuming to use than speech. Perhaps that is how you are

Quoting Me&theboys: Blackadder - I'd love some recommended reading on the topic, in addition to Fatal Misconceptions and Ultimate Resource 2.

For a technical treatment of the connection between population growth and technological advancement, you might want to look at Michael Kremer's paper "Population Growth and Technological Change: One Million B.C. to 1990," which I believe can be downloaded here: http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/qjecon/...3p681-716.html For a popular treatment of the same subject, see the last chapter of Tim Harford's book The Logic of Life. Of course, it goes without saying that if these materials contain ideas or arguments that are unfamiliar to you, you should dismiss them out of hand as "pseudo-science." I hear that's called being rational, or something.

Quoting Blackadder: For a technical treatment of the connection between population growth and technological advancement, you might want to look at Michael Kremer's paper "Population Growth and Technological Change: One Million B.C. to 1990," which I believe can be downloaded here:

http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/qjecon/...3p681-716.html

For a popular treatment of the same subject, see the last chapter of Tim Harford's book The Logic of Life.

Of course, it goes without saying that if these materials contain ideas or arguments that are unfamiliar to you, you should dismiss them out of hand as "pseudo-science." I hear that's called being rational, or something.

There are more books I ought to read than there are days left in my life. It takes me somewhat longer than a day to read most books. I look for persuasive arguments to help me choose well, or at least to the best of my ability. So far all I seem to hear you arguing is not much more compelling than "technology and innovation will allow us to stretch resources to infinity." If you want to make your case, then illustrate the limits of the ideas you support, or find some other way to argue that you're not

Twin, "Obviously the earth has finite resources and eventually we will get to a point where there are too many people if populations continue to grow. It would be foolish, I think, to deny that. " Your final point is in effect the whole argument that has taken place over this endless thread, and is why many have found it somewhat silly. Yes, we could feed more people than are avoiding starvation today. No, the number is not infinite. And the theoretical maximum will never be realized since we will never devote all resources maximizing subsistance existance. So it goes. Even if we did so, thermodynamics informs us that there are no lossless systems, and that maximum number of humans would continually decrease. Is there anything more here than returning to arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Quoting cragger: Twin,

"Obviously the earth has finite resources and eventually we will get to a point where there are too many people if populations continue to grow. It would be foolish, I think, to deny that. "

Your final point is in effect the whole argument that has taken place over this endless thread, and is why many have found it somewhat silly.

Yes, we could feed more people than are avoiding starvation today. No, the number is not infinite. And the theoretical maximum will never be realized since we will never devote all resources maximizing subsistence existence. So it goes. Even if we did so, thermodynamics informs us that there are no lossless systems, and that maximum number of humans would continually decrease.

Is there anything more here than returning to arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

For me, the importance of making some of these clarifications/distinctions is so we know where the blame for starvation/malnutrition belong. It's too convenient to blame it on the people who are suffering, or on "overpopulation." The real problem is the structures both economic and political that create these conditions

Quoting AemJeff: There are more books I ought to read than there are days left in my life. It takes me somewhat longer than a day to read most books.

You don't have to spend any time studying the matter if you don't want to. But simply dismissing an idea as nonsense and pseudo-science when by one's own admission one knows little about the subject and isn't willing to take the time to learn more doesn't strike me as being all that reasonable.

Quoting AemJeff: So far all I seem to hear you arguing is not much more compelling than "technology and innovation will allow us to stretch resources to infinity."

What is this obsession with infinity? You'd think that people were unable to tell the difference between infinity and seven billion. Suppose (to adapt an earlier example) that I was pouring a glass of lemonaid and someone runs up and yells "Stop! Stop! The lemonaid is overflowing!" I look at the glass. It is in fact not even close to being full. I point this out. If the man responds by saying something like "Oh, so you think the glass will hold an

Why do I get a feeling Blackadder is a creationist troll?

Quoting Blackadder: You don't have to spend any time studying the matter if you don't want to. But simply dismissing an idea as nonsense and pseudo-science when by one's own admission one knows little about the subject and isn't willing to take the time to learn more doesn't strike me as being all that reasonable.

What is this obsession with infinity? You'd think that people were unable to tell the difference between infinity and seven billion.

Suppose (to adapt an earlier example) that I was pouring a glass of lemonaid and someone runs up and yells "Stop! Stop! The lemonaid is overflowing!" I look at the glass. It is in fact not even close to being full. I point this out. If the man responds by saying something like "Oh, so you think the glass will hold an infinite amount of liquid, eh? Hardy har har" does anyone here think that he's made a telling point? The fact that people are so apt when discussing population to run to infinity rather than talking about the level of population that we have now or are likely to have for the foreseeable future

i hate to wuss out on you with a shorty since you spent so much time on this post but those were very reasonable points and i think this is where i'll get off (Red Wings are on...unless someone can goat me back in....

Doesn't the argument about who to blame also become self limiting? Suppose we could reduce the number of starving or increase the number at subsistance by somehow eliminating all the human factors that directly interfere such as eliminating corruption, etc. The supportable number of humans would increase somewhat. We would then come up very quickly against the problem that those living above subsistance levels are adamantly opposed to reducing their level of living so as to enable a global population increase. I take your point that things would be better without corrupt people and governments deciding that it is better to have such things as snazzy presidential palaces, fleets of attack hellicopters, cozy relationships with coke distributers or whatever each of our pet peeves are, and that we shouldn't absolve the various abuses for their impact on societies but in the context of the overall assertions in this thread, those differences seem to be "down in the noise" of the overall argument of carrying capacities and ultimate population limits, and how close to those limits we should strive to be.

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: i hate to wuss out on you with a shorty since you spent so much time on this post but those were very reasonable points and i think this is where i'll get off (Red Wings are on...unless someone can goat me back in....

Red Wings? You're not from Michigan, are you?

Quoting cragger: Doesn't the argument about who to blame also become self limiting? Suppose we could reduce the number of starving or increase the number at subsistance by somehow eliminating all the human factors that directly interfere such as eliminating corruption, etc. The supportable number of humans would increase somewhat. We would then come up very quickly against the problem that those living above subsistance levels are adamantly opposed to reducing their level of living so as to enable a global population increase.

I take your point that things would be better without corrupt people and governments deciding that it is better to have such things as snazzy presidential palaces, fleets of attack hellicopters, cozy relationships with coke distributers or whatever each of our pet peeves are, and that we shouldn't absolve the various abuses for their impact on societies but in the context of the overall assertions in this thread, those differences seem to be "down in the noise" of the overall argument of carrying capacities and ultimate population limits, and how close to those limits we should strive to be.

I see your point, and

Quoting TwinSwords: Red Wings? You're not from Michigan, are you?

yep. is that good or bad?

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: yep. is that good or bad?

It's good! I'm in Michigan too.

heyyyy, nice! we're Michigan buddies

Quoting cragger: [...]

Nicely said. I hope she reads it.

Quoting Blackadder: Suppose (to adapt an earlier example) that I was pouring a glass of lemonaid and someone runs up and yells "Stop! Stop! The lemonaid is overflowing!" I look at the glass. It is in fact not even close to being full.

With your lemonade example, it's pretty clear what "being full" amounts to. What would help me, Blackadder, and probably others, is if you could describe what, in your view, would constitute "fullness" for the case of the number of humans on Earth. What would things have to be like in order for you to judge that the human population on Earth is nearing the overflowing point?

Quoting TwinSwords: For me, the importance of making some of these clarifications/distinctions is so we know where the blame for starvation/malnutrition belong. It's too convenient to blame it on the people who are suffering, or on "overpopulation." The real problem is the structures both economic and political that create these conditions and allow them to continue. If people realized that massive famine and malnutrition were voluntary choices and not inevitable consequences of overpopulation, they might take action to change the world. If we blame this on overpopulation, we're letting people get away with creating massive human suffering.

This is an excellent point. And one of the primary places to assign blame is on the subjugation of women. If places where there is famine and malnutrition and extreme violence would support the education and empowerment of women, there would be tremendous progress in the reduction of poverty and malnutrition, in improved health, and in the stabilization of population/resources. And solving those problems has the potential to make the world a much more peaceful place. So the real question is why do we hear so little about such an effective

Quoting Me&theboys: This is an excellent point. And one of the primary places to assign blame is on the subjugation of women. If places where there is famine and malnutrition and extreme violence would support the education and empowerment of women, there would be tremendous progress in the reduction of poverty and malnutrition, in improved health, and in the stabilization of population/resources. And solving those problems has the potential to make the world a much more peaceful place. So the real question is why do we hear so little about such an effective solution and why do so many conversations about overpopulation fail to address this aspect?

Thank you. I think the reason we don't hear about the real source of the problem, or the real solutions, is because discussion of those things threatens existing power and profit structures. It's not in the interest of the powerful to shine a light on their own culpability, so they shine it elsewhere. And blame for this belongs to both parties. Last week I was discussing with Bobby G the bipartisan nature of America's conservative politics, and this is a good example. People often have

Quoting SkepticDoc: Why do I get a feeling Blackadder is a creationist troll?

Probably because it's easier than actually addressing what I've said (I'm not, by the way).

Quoting AemJeff: Credible models show how systems are constrained. I'm trying to ascertain whether the idea you're advocating contains even the barest idea of how the system it purports to describe is limited.

If what you're saying is that you won't believe that the planet can sustain a population of seven billion people unless I give an upper limit of how many people it could sustain, then I don't think that's reasonable. I can't give you an upper limit on how tall a building can be. Whatever estimate I gave would either be sheer guesswork, or it would be based on current technology and we have every reason to thing that technology will keep advancing in the future. But I don't need to know the theoretical upper limit on building height to tell you that buildings can be built that are at least 10, 20, or even 100 stories tall.

Quoting mvantony: With your lemonade example, it's pretty clear what "being full" amounts to. What would help me, Blackadder, and probably others, is if you could describe what, in your view, would constitute "fullness" for the case of the number of humans on Earth. What would things have to be like in order for you to judge that the human population on Earth is nearing the overflowing point?

Well, sure. With regard to food, if we were using all or almost all available arable land for food production and were producing as much food on that land as possible (with no likelihood of further improvements in the foreseeable future) and this wasn't enough to feed everyone, then we would have reached our limit in terms of population. The same would be true, mutatis mutandis, for other types of resources. The reality, of course, is that we are nowhere near that limit, or are we ever likely to get close to it.

Quoting TwinSwords: I think the reason we don't hear about the real source of the problem, or the real solutions, is because discussion of those things threatens existing power and profit structures. It's not in the interest of the powerful to shine a light on their own culpability, so they shine it elsewhere.

Well that explains it for the people making decisions at the top. But it doesn't explain why intelligent regular people who say they care about issues are often oblivious to (and/or apparently threatened by some of) the facts of the matter about those issues. Or maybe it does....... For those interested in population and poverty, be sure to visit this site, see the exhibition, buy the book, or do all three: http://theplaceswelive.com/

Quoting Blackadder: The reality, of course, is that we are nowhere near that limit, or are we ever likely to get close to it.

WilliamP made the claim on thiis board a while back that

Another stunning fact to me is that when agriculture was invented, humans and their livestock and pets accounted for less that 0.1% of the world's vertebrate biomass. Today this figure is about 98%!

That sounded crazy to me, but I was able to find the source, and it seemed credible. (Need to add "terrestrial" to be accurate.) Add to that, for example, the rapid deforestation in places like Brazil for the purpose of creating new grazing areas and other agricultural applications, and I just don't see how you can say we're not anywhere near the limit, nor that we'll ever get close. In a theoretical sense -- assuming food could be more fairly distributed -- maybe I could buy that we have some headroom. But I think the only realistic way we won't approach the theoretical limit of sustainability is that all kinds of other bad things will kick in first to limit the population -- disease, pockets of famine, and wars, for example.

bjkeefe, I don't consider the percentage of terrestrial vertebrate biomass made up by human beings to be a particularly telling indicator. I mean, seriously. If you google "demographic transition" this should help ease your fears somewhat. Places like Japan and parts of Europe have already entered phases of demographic decline, not because their populations have been limited by disease, pockets of famine, or war, but because as a society becomes more affluent, people voluntarily decide to have fewer children.

Quoting Blackadder: I don't consider the percentage of terrestrial vertebrate biomass made up by human beings to be a particularly telling indicator. I mean, seriously.

Why not?

If you google "demographic transition" this should help ease your fears somewhat. Places like Japan and parts of Europe have already entered phases of demographic decline, not because their populations have been limited by disease, pockets of famine, or war, but because as a society becomes more affluent, people voluntarily decide to have fewer children.

Agreed. And education has worked wonders in many places, and as Me& has pointed out, particularly as regards empowering women. Still, this is not happening fast enough, worldwide, to my estimation, and I continue to believe that there will be many regions where the population will be limited in more brutal ways.

Quoting ChrisCatanese: look george we live in a center right country ...

Something else for your consideration.

Imagine a "Natural Resources Czar" briefing the President on the standard of living: "How are will doing on food?" "Plenty of food." "Living space?" "Never better. Plenty to go around." "Life expectancy?" "We're living longer and healthier lives." "What about the human percentage of terrestrial vertebrate biomass?" "Well, uh, it's at... Ninety-eight percent." "Ninety-eight percent! Dear God, we're all doomed!" Explain why the percentage of terrestrial vertebrate biomass made up of humans, their live stock, and their pets has any real world relevance, and then perhaps I'll start to be concerned (by the way, if it makes you feel any better, you should know that the population ten thousand years ago was less than 0.1% of what it is today. The average biomass of a human back then was undoubtedly less than today as well, and probably the average biomass of pets and livestock per human was a lot less before the development of agriculture too, so the statistic is nothing more than a fancy way of saying that there are a lot more people around now than in 8,000 B.C.

Quoting Blackadder: [...]

First, I was talking about the whole world's carrying capacity, in response to your earlier assertion that we were nowhere near the limits, nor would we ever get there. Big deal, the US is still doing fairly well, at least as far as being able to feed its own. And by the way:

"Life expectancy?"

"We're living longer and healthier lives."

Not true.

Explain why the percentage of terrestrial vertebrate biomass made up of humans, their live stock, and their pets has any real world relevance ...

Because it suggests to me that we're near a limit. Further, this idea that everything's cool if we live on a planet where every acre is devoted to growing food just to keep the population alive is something I reject out of hand. I have no interest in mere survival. I said before I was going to let you have the last word, in another subthread. I now apply that to the whole topic. I think you're being pollyannaish and it's not worth the effort to try to talk you down.

Quoting thwood3: . I don't think its a stretch to think that haidt has identified two endophenotypes. Some cultural anthropologist, Douglas(?) Wildofsky identified the same dichotomy. And there are many other people working on very similar models like Dan Kahan at Yale and John Hanson at Harvard. You've probably seen his blog The Situationist. John Jost at NYU also...

Thank you for The Situationist link, Tom. What a great resource. It'll keep me busy reading for weeks. Lots of fascinating research out there on this topic, with lots of important implications for the future.

bjkeefe, The point is that it would be silly for the President (or anyone else) to ignore trends on things like food, shelter, life expectancy, and whatnot, in favor of a rather artificial statistic like the percentage of terrestrial vertebrate biomass made up by humans, their livestock, and their pets. And again, whatever your feelings about a world in which we were using all available arable land for food production at its maximum capacity, the point is that we aren't anywhere close to that point right now, nor are we likely to ever get anywhere near it.