Anybody for VHEM?

[Vman455]

Negative growth rates in a handful of countries mean nothing when there are 180+ other nations more than making up for it, and the species' population continues (and will continue) to enjoy not just a robust positive growth rate, but greater absolute growth even as that growth rate declines.

[freebeard]

https://bfi.org/about-fuller/biography

All these questions were answered so that humanity, when it is ready, will have the tools on the shelf to solve it's problems. He said that machinery operates at an overall efficiency of 4% and constructed buildings at 1%; so 'simply' double those numbers and increasing numbers of people can enjoy a standard of living unobtainable by anyone living today. Seriously, look it up.

We are stuck at the bottom of a gravity well, but if development of the Em-drive continues we will have Star Trek impulse power.*

'ASICs melting in the heat, and the blockchain goes on and on...'

Edit: *And transparent aluminum.

[redpoint5]

All population graphs show a declining rate of population growth. I'm telling you, even though we only see the problems of overpopulation with our short-term perspective, the long-term problem will be a dwindling population.

there isn't any convincing evidence to show that the size of our population is the cause of the world's most pressing issues, like war, famine, disease, and poverty.

Let's put it another way. Since we have more people, our wars are bigger. Our famines may affect more people, and more people will have diseases and be poor. But population growth didn't create these problems--they have have existed since people have existed.

In other words, we can't blame population for problems that have been around forever. The only difference is, since there are more of us now, these problems affect more people.

https://overpopulationisamyth.com/co...still_growing.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Not true. Really, the only developed countries with negative growth rates are Japan and some of the former Soviet Bloc countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...on_growth_rate

But in fact standards of living go down (by any non-slanted measure) in developed countries, as large fractions of the population are condemned to live in the human equivalents of battery chicken farms.

It is true, really. The only reason many of the developed countries have positive growth rates is due to immigration. Obviously, people want to move to where the prospects are good, and that causes the population to increase. That doesn't mean their birthrates are greater than replacement.

Standards of living in developed countries are better for the entire population than those in poor countries. Heck, I would consider myself to have won the lottery to be homeless in the U.S. considering I could have just as easily been born in some place like Liberia.

The poorest in the U.S. enjoy a higher standard of living than the average conditions in the rest of the world. Despite a world population of 7 billion, I'm enjoying a much better life than even a king from 200 years ago when there was just 1 billion people.

Instead of viewing people as merely a resource consuming liability, you can view them as an asset that offers new ideas and labor.

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Look at Europe. White people are likely to become a minority there in about 20 years. I'm not "racist" at all, but that's frightening...

I don't see how that is frightening. People are people, regardless of color.

I'm looking forward to the day when you can't tell what "race" someone is by looking at them because we'll all be mutts.

[Frank Lee]

A declining growth rate is still growth.

[Xist]

Redpoint,

I am having flashbacks of one of my threads that I asked to have closed, but something we discussed, or at least I tried to, was clean water. I imagine that many criticize municipal water sources, but at least the homeless should have access to water fountains, and that is an advantage that millions lack.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

It is true, really. The only reason many of the developed countries have positive growth rates is due to immigration.

Growth is growth. Doesn't matter if they are born to current inhabitants, decide to move in from elsewhere, or are brought by the stork: the population still increases.

Originally Posted by freebeard

He said that machinery operates at an overall efficiency of 4% and constructed buildings at 1%; so 'simply' double those numbers and increasing numbers of people can enjoy a standard of living unobtainable by anyone living today.

Isn't it amazing how sometimes "genius" can't see the blindingly obvious? (For instance, the major flaws in his "Dymaxion" house and car.) A great deal of what goes into the poorly defined "standard of living" is provided by nature rather than being produced by machinery, and so has a fixed upper limit. Supply more humans, and at best the amount available per capita goes down. Then figure that humans thoughtlessly destroy much of the capacity...

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm looking forward to the day when you can't tell what "race" someone is by looking at them because we'll all be mutts.

Not me. I like diversity.

Isn't it amazing how sometimes "genius" can't see the blindingly obvious? (For instance, the major flaws in his "Dymaxion" house and car.) A great deal of what goes into the poorly defined "standard of living" is provided by nature rather than being produced by machinery, and so has a fixed upper limit. Supply more humans, and at best the amount available per capita goes down. Then figure that humans thoughtlessly destroy much of the capacity...

Trash-talking Bucky? Well...

Look into it sometime.

• 'metaphysically engendered materials'
• 'wired to wireless, tracked to trackless'
• 'doing progressively more with less, until...'

You're right about "standard of living", of course. A person used to purchasing and consuming might not understand or value a standard based on life in mental spaces or virtual spaces.

Then there's this:

The Case for Making Humans Smaller - Facts So Romantic - Nautilus

TLDR: A human 50cm tall would consume 2% the food and fuel.

Here's a thought experiment: Suppose everyone was given a choice at age eight; go through puberty, bulk up, have kids and die. basically the deal now. Versus decline puberty, stop growing at 50lb and live forever.

What choice would your eight-year-old self make? What choice would eight-year-olds make two generations from now?

[Xist]

Is the eight year-old bullying or being bullied?

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I don't see how that is frightening. People are people, regardless of color.

I'm looking forward to the day when you can't tell what "race" someone is by looking at them because we'll all be mutts.

Don't get me wrong, I was referring to the cultural aspects, not the racial ones. I could really care less about other peoples' skin colors or nationality, as long as their culture and religion doesn't serve as an excuse to harass anyone else who disagrees with them. Get it?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by freebeard

You're right about "standard of living", of course. A person used to purchasing and consuming might not understand or value a standard based on life in mental spaces or virtual spaces.

I was thinking just the opposite, of course. For me, a decent standard of living requires ready access to a natural environment, which obvious becomes difficult to access if other humans have turned it into cities or factory farms.

Then there are limits on things like food supply. And even before the calorie limit is reached, you have a decline in quality and diversity of diet. How many Americans, for instance, have ever eaten meat other than factory-farmed beef, pork, chicken, and a turkey for Thanksgiving?