6 billion and counting... down.
April 15, 2008 11:31 PM Subscribe
Is it time to say goodbye? How much is enough? How many is too many? At what point does "be fruitful and multiply" become a recipe for disaster? Is humanity obsolete?
The human population of the earth has doubled in the last fifty years. Population control advocates are regularly derided as reactionary, misanthropic, and unrealistic. So why not go whole hog and advocate population removal? No murder, no genocide, no suicide, no violence. Just a gentle, painless slide into extinction, giving the planet some time to recover from our insatiable, rapacious greed.
The human population of the earth has doubled in the last fifty years. Population control advocates are regularly derided as reactionary, misanthropic, and unrealistic. So why not go whole hog and advocate population removal? No murder, no genocide, no suicide, no violence. Just a gentle, painless slide into extinction, giving the planet some time to recover from our insatiable, rapacious greed.
This post was deleted for the following reason: this is sort of a comment on another post and we've seen it here many times before. -- jessamyn
Is it time to say goodbye to chatfilter? How much chatting is enough on MetaFilter? How many chatty threads are too many?
At what point does "be fruitful and multiply" become a recipe for disaster? Is humanity obsolete?
At what point do sentiments such as these degenerate into morbid misanthropy?
posted by KokuRyu at 11:36 PM on April 15, 2008 [2 favorites]
At what point does "be fruitful and multiply" become a recipe for disaster? Is humanity obsolete?
At what point do sentiments such as these degenerate into morbid misanthropy?
posted by KokuRyu at 11:36 PM on April 15, 2008 [2 favorites]
But, but, but... If we "normal" people decide to stop multiplying then only the weirdos will be left!
posted by amyms at 11:36 PM on April 15, 2008
posted by amyms at 11:36 PM on April 15, 2008
Nullip 4 Lyfe
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 11:40 PM on April 15, 2008
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 11:40 PM on April 15, 2008
Who will enjoy this sans-human utopia environment? Penguins?
posted by demiurge at 11:43 PM on April 15, 2008
posted by demiurge at 11:43 PM on April 15, 2008
They seem to be overlooking the fact that while they need to convince every one of their followers to join them, their 'be fruitful and multiply' opponents are giving birth to new members every day.
posted by twirlypen at 11:46 PM on April 15, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by twirlypen at 11:46 PM on April 15, 2008 [2 favorites]
Q: Does VHEMT favor abortion?I'm stealing that line.
Only when someone is pregnant.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 11:48 PM on April 15, 2008
Just a gentle, painless slide into extinction
You may choose a gentle, painless slide into extinction.
But you are very much in the minority on this. Most people much prefer to live and to breed. There are powerful cultural and biological imperatives supporting these behaviors.
What you want ain't gonna happen voluntarily or non-violently.
posted by jason's_planet at 11:52 PM on April 15, 2008
You may choose a gentle, painless slide into extinction.
But you are very much in the minority on this. Most people much prefer to live and to breed. There are powerful cultural and biological imperatives supporting these behaviors.
What you want ain't gonna happen voluntarily or non-violently.
posted by jason's_planet at 11:52 PM on April 15, 2008
At what point do sentiments such as these degenerate into morbid misanthropy?
As a message of voluntary non-reproduction this parody is hardly misanthropic. Since about 1980 (for the whole of my lifetime) we have been in ecological overshoot. The attendant consequences have only begun to be felt.
Why not have a global discussion about humane population control. I think it's high time to stop making it a taboo subject.
posted by FissionChips at 11:54 PM on April 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
As a message of voluntary non-reproduction this parody is hardly misanthropic. Since about 1980 (for the whole of my lifetime) we have been in ecological overshoot. The attendant consequences have only begun to be felt.
Why not have a global discussion about humane population control. I think it's high time to stop making it a taboo subject.
posted by FissionChips at 11:54 PM on April 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
When mother nature decides that enough is enough, we will not have to give her any help to cull us. She is quite capable of doing it all on her own.
posted by moonbiter at 11:54 PM on April 15, 2008
posted by moonbiter at 11:54 PM on April 15, 2008
And I hate to be a dick here, but this is a double.
posted by jason's_planet at 11:55 PM on April 15, 2008
posted by jason's_planet at 11:55 PM on April 15, 2008
Who will enjoy this sans-human utopia environment? Penguins?
That works for me. I like penguins. Yeah, penguins!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 11:57 PM on April 15, 2008
That works for me. I like penguins. Yeah, penguins!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 11:57 PM on April 15, 2008
Double or not, the way today had gone: I agree, we are better of without us.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 11:58 PM on April 15, 2008
posted by Samuel Farrow at 11:58 PM on April 15, 2008
Can we just get started with the Thunderdome already? I got my wardrobe all picked out.
posted by loquacious at 11:59 PM on April 15, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by loquacious at 11:59 PM on April 15, 2008 [2 favorites]
This post is progeny and must be curtailed.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:01 AM on April 16, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:01 AM on April 16, 2008 [2 favorites]
fissionchips--why not have "a global discussion about humane..." anything? It's not a "taboo subject" in China: that government has actively pursued birth control measures. Maybe if we curb the biggest users of the planet's resources, i.e. America, then the discussion need not be global. There's no need to take a theoretical shit on the already suffering third world. Since 1980, the greatest "ecological overshooters" have been in the US of A. Do you honestly think the folks dying in the failed drug wars in Mexico's border towns, to take but one example, will be allowed equal access to this "global discussion"? The closest body that the world has to a global discussion place (i.e the UN) is one that America has, for over 30 years, treated with utter contempt. For much of the world, just living is a taboo subject. Overpopulation is not the uber-macro global problem: the insanely uneven distribution of wealth is the uber-macro global problem.
posted by ornate insect at 12:08 AM on April 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by ornate insect at 12:08 AM on April 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
I think they should start out by just getting everyone on board to the not-pumping-them-out-as-fast-as-possible-until-you-die philosophy, and then reconvene for a chat about the whole extinction business once we have the basics covered.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:14 AM on April 16, 2008
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:14 AM on April 16, 2008
The world needs your children, and if you don't agree, then you're probably right.
posted by BinGregory at 12:18 AM on April 16, 2008
posted by BinGregory at 12:18 AM on April 16, 2008
Once again people completely ignore the fact that population is below replacement (in some places significantly below) in pretty much all western countries, plus Japan and some industrialized asian places.
The problem are the dirt-poor, uneducated, and misogynistic regions. Sub-Saharan African, the middle east, parts of South America. Interestingly enough, the poorer, less educated, and more misogynistic a place is, the higher the birthrate tends to be. Lift people's standard of living and educate them, particularly the women, and the birthrate drops below replacement.
The solution to any supposed population problem is clear; educate people and demand equality for women. The rest follows naturally and inevitably.
posted by Justinian at 12:20 AM on April 16, 2008 [2 favorites]
The problem are the dirt-poor, uneducated, and misogynistic regions. Sub-Saharan African, the middle east, parts of South America. Interestingly enough, the poorer, less educated, and more misogynistic a place is, the higher the birthrate tends to be. Lift people's standard of living and educate them, particularly the women, and the birthrate drops below replacement.
The solution to any supposed population problem is clear; educate people and demand equality for women. The rest follows naturally and inevitably.
posted by Justinian at 12:20 AM on April 16, 2008 [2 favorites]
For the record, the predictions are for the rate of population growth to continue to slow (a more conservative prediction here). That's impressive given that population growth would be expected to be exponential.
posted by Leon-arto at 12:22 AM on April 16, 2008
posted by Leon-arto at 12:22 AM on April 16, 2008
I'm all for morbid misanthorpy as long as no one I know, have or currently care about, or might care about in the future, are involved.
Otherwise, yeah, baby, bring on the destruction!
posted by From Bklyn at 12:25 AM on April 16, 2008
Otherwise, yeah, baby, bring on the destruction!
posted by From Bklyn at 12:25 AM on April 16, 2008
Yes! No! Maybe! 42! A penguin! Stinky Weazleteats!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:51 AM on April 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:51 AM on April 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
It's actually almost a triple.
But there was a discussion about overpopulation about two days ago here, and since that thread is still open, you could continue the discussion there.
posted by salvia at 1:06 AM on April 16, 2008
But there was a discussion about overpopulation about two days ago here, and since that thread is still open, you could continue the discussion there.
posted by salvia at 1:06 AM on April 16, 2008
Somebody pass stav another beer! He's on a roll!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 1:07 AM on April 16, 2008
posted by flapjax at midnite at 1:07 AM on April 16, 2008
Sadly, I am still at work, and will be for another 4 hours. I AM HIGH ON LIFE BABY.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:09 AM on April 16, 2008
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:09 AM on April 16, 2008
LIFE, eh? Must be one of those Korean brews that don't get exported to Japan...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 1:56 AM on April 16, 2008
posted by flapjax at midnite at 1:56 AM on April 16, 2008
Great, now humanity is making idle threats to kill itself. Earth is officially the most emo planet in the galaxy.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 2:14 AM on April 16, 2008 [4 favorites]
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 2:14 AM on April 16, 2008 [4 favorites]
The problem are the dirt-poor, uneducated, and misogynistic regions. Sub-Saharan African, the middle east, parts of South America. Interestingly enough, the poorer, less educated, and more misogynistic a place is, the higher the birthrate tends to be. Lift people's standard of living and educate them, particularly the women, and the birthrate drops below replacement.
Ah, the hypocritical sneer of the "concerned" first-worlder.
If the Third World got rid of the First--if only the poorest and most uneducated regions remained--the human population could continue to expand for a fairly long time without straining Earth's resources. But of course it's never your fault, is it? You need to produce 50 gallons of garbage a week, that doesn't count, it's what everyone else does. But the dirty brown people and the rednecks, someone should really do something about that.
Fatuous "concern" about the way the dirty brown people are reproducing is just a thin veil over the most naked class prejudice. It very clearly says: the life of one of those poor people is just not as valuable as another baby yuppie popped out in the suburbs.
But this thread is wrong and ridiculous anyway, the best predictions we have have global population growth plateauing very soon. Sorry, you'll have to find another excuse for being racist and/or morbidly misanthropic.
posted by nasreddin at 2:19 AM on April 16, 2008 [2 favorites]
Ah, the hypocritical sneer of the "concerned" first-worlder.
If the Third World got rid of the First--if only the poorest and most uneducated regions remained--the human population could continue to expand for a fairly long time without straining Earth's resources. But of course it's never your fault, is it? You need to produce 50 gallons of garbage a week, that doesn't count, it's what everyone else does. But the dirty brown people and the rednecks, someone should really do something about that.
Fatuous "concern" about the way the dirty brown people are reproducing is just a thin veil over the most naked class prejudice. It very clearly says: the life of one of those poor people is just not as valuable as another baby yuppie popped out in the suburbs.
But this thread is wrong and ridiculous anyway, the best predictions we have have global population growth plateauing very soon. Sorry, you'll have to find another excuse for being racist and/or morbidly misanthropic.
posted by nasreddin at 2:19 AM on April 16, 2008 [2 favorites]
Being a confirmed bachelor who has just turned 32, can I just say to everybody: nobody gives a fuck about your baby or the details of how you financed your home. Honestly, I'm bored out of my mind by all of you.
posted by autodidact at 3:22 AM on April 16, 2008
posted by autodidact at 3:22 AM on April 16, 2008
But, dude, THUNDERDOME!
posted by From Bklyn at 3:33 AM on April 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by From Bklyn at 3:33 AM on April 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
Sorry about the seeming lack of context above. I started typing a comment about how I can't believe the birth rate is below replacement levels in more advanced countries. Right now I am just about the only remaining bachelor in my long-standing central clique of friends. Everybody gets hitched up to some girl they're usually already cheating on, who then squeezes out a turd with a sense of entitlement that, from my POV, completely ruins their life and turns them into, literally, boring asswipes.
posted by autodidact at 3:41 AM on April 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by autodidact at 3:41 AM on April 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
... and then the answer to their boredom is to have one or two more kids. Fucking PUKE.
posted by autodidact at 3:42 AM on April 16, 2008
posted by autodidact at 3:42 AM on April 16, 2008
What we needs is a new planets.
posted by WalterMitty at 3:42 AM on April 16, 2008
posted by WalterMitty at 3:42 AM on April 16, 2008
These arguments always seem to follow the same pattern:
People argue that we should reduce human population because we're threatening the planet's carrying capacity. This is then followed by an argument about whether or not we actually are threatening the planet's carrying capacity.
The underlying assumption is that we should have as many humans as the planet can support.
Let me present an alternative view, one that seems glaringly obvious to me: let's see how few humans we can get by with! Why are more humans better? This is just an assumption that nobody ever questions. I say more humans are NOT better! The fewer humans there are, the more non-human landscape, space, trees, other animals, open seas, grasslands there are. This is a GOOD THING. A tiny number of humans living in a vast sea of wilderness is a GOOD THING. A tiny planet choking on the waste of a species that breeds like wine vat yeast is a BAD THING.
Also, let's get away from the tiresome argument about whether we should reduce the population of the Third World OR the consumption of the rich countries. Obviously, we should do both, and the more we do of both the better. This is NOT a racist argument against 'dirty brown people', and I'm offended by those who imply that it is. If anything it's racist against rich (mostly white) people, since they're consuming the most, and a decrease in their population makes the most difference to carrying capacity.
I'm with autodidact, I'm completely frickin' sick of being polite about other people's offspring. Sure, they're attached to their kids, and that's great. Once you've had 'em, you'd better take care of 'em. But that doesn't mean that I think they're cute and cuddly, or that I have some moral obligation to acknowledge how fabulous and innocent and incredible they are. Most children are self-absorbed little consumption monsters, and most of them don't change much when they become adults.
The self-regard of the human race is simultaneously amusing and disgusting to me. I don't believe that we're evil or horrible, just generally weak and stupid, with occasional bursts of creativity and compassion. We're an evolutionary blip, an unfortunate combination of technical brilliance combined with insatiable greed.
I think a tree frog is a more amazing thing than every electronic device ever created by humanity.
In your replies, please avoid 'hippy', 'tree-hugger', 'callow', 'unrealistic', 'humorless', 'uptight', 'narrow-minded', and 'misanthropic', as these have been covered in previous threads. Consult your thesaurus.
posted by arcadia at 4:57 AM on April 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
People argue that we should reduce human population because we're threatening the planet's carrying capacity. This is then followed by an argument about whether or not we actually are threatening the planet's carrying capacity.
The underlying assumption is that we should have as many humans as the planet can support.
Let me present an alternative view, one that seems glaringly obvious to me: let's see how few humans we can get by with! Why are more humans better? This is just an assumption that nobody ever questions. I say more humans are NOT better! The fewer humans there are, the more non-human landscape, space, trees, other animals, open seas, grasslands there are. This is a GOOD THING. A tiny number of humans living in a vast sea of wilderness is a GOOD THING. A tiny planet choking on the waste of a species that breeds like wine vat yeast is a BAD THING.
Also, let's get away from the tiresome argument about whether we should reduce the population of the Third World OR the consumption of the rich countries. Obviously, we should do both, and the more we do of both the better. This is NOT a racist argument against 'dirty brown people', and I'm offended by those who imply that it is. If anything it's racist against rich (mostly white) people, since they're consuming the most, and a decrease in their population makes the most difference to carrying capacity.
I'm with autodidact, I'm completely frickin' sick of being polite about other people's offspring. Sure, they're attached to their kids, and that's great. Once you've had 'em, you'd better take care of 'em. But that doesn't mean that I think they're cute and cuddly, or that I have some moral obligation to acknowledge how fabulous and innocent and incredible they are. Most children are self-absorbed little consumption monsters, and most of them don't change much when they become adults.
The self-regard of the human race is simultaneously amusing and disgusting to me. I don't believe that we're evil or horrible, just generally weak and stupid, with occasional bursts of creativity and compassion. We're an evolutionary blip, an unfortunate combination of technical brilliance combined with insatiable greed.
I think a tree frog is a more amazing thing than every electronic device ever created by humanity.
In your replies, please avoid 'hippy', 'tree-hugger', 'callow', 'unrealistic', 'humorless', 'uptight', 'narrow-minded', and 'misanthropic', as these have been covered in previous threads. Consult your thesaurus.
posted by arcadia at 4:57 AM on April 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
autodidact: yeah, it sucks when your friends change and you don't
posted by papercake at 5:02 AM on April 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by papercake at 5:02 AM on April 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
The dinosaur I was riding when I first saw VHEMT is now extinct. No idea if it was voluntary though.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 5:03 AM on April 16, 2008
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 5:03 AM on April 16, 2008
If the Third World got rid of the First--if only the poorest and most uneducated regions remained--the human population could continue to expand for a fairly long time without straining Earth's resources.
You'd also have to figure out how to keep any of them from improving their standard of living too much.
I think a world of one or two billion living at a high and sustainable standard of living would be much nicer than a world of xx billion stretching the earth to the limit in order to slowly starve to death.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 5:10 AM on April 16, 2008
You'd also have to figure out how to keep any of them from improving their standard of living too much.
I think a world of one or two billion living at a high and sustainable standard of living would be much nicer than a world of xx billion stretching the earth to the limit in order to slowly starve to death.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 5:10 AM on April 16, 2008
If the Third World got rid of the First--if only the poorest and most uneducated regions remained--the human population could continue to expand for a fairly long time without straining Earth's resources.
no, because the 3rd world's reliance on the 1st world's technology is what makes that expansion possible - it was improved health care and improved agricultural tech that's caused most of the increase
in short, social "backwardness" doesn't cause population explosions, western altruism does
---
The dinosaur I was riding when I first saw VHEMT is now extinct.
crap, i exchanged email with him in 1997 - he's a true believer
posted by pyramid termite at 5:10 AM on April 16, 2008
no, because the 3rd world's reliance on the 1st world's technology is what makes that expansion possible - it was improved health care and improved agricultural tech that's caused most of the increase
in short, social "backwardness" doesn't cause population explosions, western altruism does
---
The dinosaur I was riding when I first saw VHEMT is now extinct.
crap, i exchanged email with him in 1997 - he's a true believer
posted by pyramid termite at 5:10 AM on April 16, 2008
The measure of all things is human being.
So I'm going to try to live sensibly because I don't want my world surrounded by trash, but no, I'm not going to let go so the world can somehow "right itself" -- as though we were a virus inserted from beyond it.
posted by voltairemodern at 5:28 AM on April 16, 2008
So I'm going to try to live sensibly because I don't want my world surrounded by trash, but no, I'm not going to let go so the world can somehow "right itself" -- as though we were a virus inserted from beyond it.
posted by voltairemodern at 5:28 AM on April 16, 2008
"the measure of all things is human being" said the human being...
"the measure of all things is the three toed sloth" said the three toed sloth...
"the measure of all things is the ridge-backed vole" said the ridge-backed vole...
"the measure of all things is the amanita spore" said the amanita spore...
posted by arcadia at 5:40 AM on April 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
"the measure of all things is the three toed sloth" said the three toed sloth...
"the measure of all things is the ridge-backed vole" said the ridge-backed vole...
"the measure of all things is the amanita spore" said the amanita spore...
posted by arcadia at 5:40 AM on April 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
« Older If it ain't a mess, it'll do till the mess gets... | If I recall correctly, Johnny used to work on the... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ornate insect at 11:35 PM on April 15, 2008