The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race

Originally posted by josephw
Everyone willing to work.

Until one has farmed, one doesn't know what work is.

This is so patently wrong and insulting it's hard to know where to start but...

So people who go down mines don't know what work is?

Originally posted by rwingett
If everyone quit having kids then the human race would be extinct within one generation. No need for anyone to kill themselves. That's not really necessary, though. It would be sufficient for people to have far fewer children and have the population drop a billion or two over time.

So, no, we can't go back, but we can realize the mistakes we've made and try to mitigate their effects.

Indeed, although I wouldn't call trying to get the vast majority of people not to have kids as simple (or desirable).

I just wonder how you think it's possible to mitigate the effects of our vast numbers without advanced technology.
The less efficient our farming is, the more land it uses, so the more of the wilds of the planet get used up.
The less dense our housing, the more land it uses, so the less farming/wild land we have.
The further we have to travel to work the more resources we use.
The more distributed we are to be close to farms the less dense the housing, so the more land we use.
The further we are from our farms the denser our housing can be, but the more we have to travel.

The only way out is to minimise the number of people needed to farm so that the majority can live in cities, and a minority farm.
And Using advanced technology, such as fusion, Hydrogen fuel cells, digital conferencing, remote robots, GM crops, ect, ect,
to minimise our impact.
And yes eventually more the majority of people into space onto man made orbital habitats to increase our species survivability
and reduce/remove overcrowding.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Indeed, although I wouldn't call trying to get the vast majority of people not to have kids as simple (or desirable).

I just wonder how you think it's possible to mitigate the effects of our vast numbers without advanced technology.
The less efficient our farming is, the more land it uses, so the more of the wilds of the planet get used up.
The less ...[text shortened]... made orbital habitats to increase our species survivability
and reduce/remove overcrowding.

I simply have no interest in your science fiction scenarios. They bore me. The level of technology and resource consumption needed to sustain such a society will destroy the planet long before we've achieved the ability to 'flee' from it. Thus aiming for such a goal is self-defeating. It will be a direct cause for the scenario it seeks to escape.

The answer will always be fewer people. We need to find out what the carrying capacity of the earth is for a human population in a sustainable lifestyle and then refrain from exceeding it.

Originally posted by rwingett
I simply have no interest in your science fiction scenarios. They bore me. The level of technology and resource consumption needed to sustain such a society will destroy the planet long before we've achieved the ability to 'flee' from it. Thus aiming for such a goal is self-defeating. It will be a direct cause for the scenario it seeks to escape.

The an ...[text shortened]... arth is for a human population in a sustainable lifestyle and then refrain from exceeding it.

It's not science fiction.

And your statement that we can't achieve it without destroying the planet is an assertion you need to back up.
[edit: which I have said several times and you have steadfastly refused to do so]

People have been declaring things to be impossible, only for it to be done, many times throughout history.

You postulate a 'solution' that I demonstrate is not practical, and your riposte is that my solution bores you.

And while I agree it would be best to keep earth population down below a sustainable level, its possible we have
already passed it.

And as any solution requiring a drastic reduction in population is morally and practically untenable, finding somewhere else to migrate to is the only real option.
Long-term this would require space travel, although we could make much better use of the oceans in the short term.

EDIT: and move into space was what I had as being the eventual long term solution. you utterly ignored all my other points.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's not science fiction.

And your statement that we can't achieve it without destroying the planet is an assertion you need to back up.
[edit: which I have said several times and you have steadfastly refused to do so]

People have been declaring things to be impossible, only for it to be done, many times throughout history.

You postulate a 'sol ...[text shortened]... hat I had as being the eventual long term solution. you utterly ignored all my other points.

And I will continue to ignore them.

Originally posted by rwingett
And I will continue to ignore them.

Well that makes for a good debate....

You post an unsupportable position, refuse to answer criticism of it, and ignore counter points.

Why should anyone bother talking to you?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well that makes for a good debate....

You post an unsupportable position, refuse to answer criticism of it, and ignore counter points.

Why should anyone bother talking to you?

Unsupportable position? Every single part of your argument is an unsupportable position. Space platforms? Space colonies? It's nothing but wild-eyed science fiction, and you have the temerity to accuse me of posting about "unsupportable positions."

I have repeatedly pointed out that increasing levels of technology necessarily entail increasing levels of consumption. This is an undeniable fact. The levels of consumption that would be required to support your "space faring" society would dwarf those of present society. Since we are rapidly exceeding the carrying capacity of the earth now, it seems a likely bet that we will have irrevocably done so long before your space opera comes to fruition.

Originally posted by rwingett
Unsupportable position? Every single part of your argument is an unsupportable position. Space platforms? Space colonies? It's nothing but wild-eyed science fiction, and you have the temerity to accuse me of posting about "unsupportable positions."

I have repeatedly pointed out that increasing levels of technology necessarily entail increasing levels of ...[text shortened]... y bet that we will have irrevocably done so long before your space opera comes to fruition.

First increasing levels of technology do not by necessity entail increasing consumption.
What you claim is not an undeniable fact, and even if it were you should present the evidence to support it.
Which you have not done, you simply claimed it as truth with no backing whatsoever.

Second a space faring society need not have higher levels of consumption than we do now, this is another
unsupported assumption you need to justify, and haven't.

Third it isn't wild eyed science fiction, there is nothing inherently physically impossible, or technologically
impractical about it.

Fourth, I have made many points about living on this planet sustainably which you have ignored, instead focusing
all your unfounded derision on what I state the long term goal must be which is to get off this planet.
For staying on it IS undeniably going to lead to our extinction at some point.
And by most of us leaving it we significantly reduce our burden upon it.

Fifth, I pointed out many reasons why your vision of the future wont work.
None of which you made any substantive response to.
Instead you chose to meet me with insults and derision instead of actual well thought out argument.

The point of the OP was I though a fascinating proposition (and start for a debate) although in my opinion ultimately
wrong and flawed.
However you have simply attempted to bully people into your point of view with no recourse to logic reason or evidence.

I would love to debate this issue with you (and others) properly, but if you are going to continue to refuse to enter the debate
why should any of us bother to listen to your opinions?

Originally posted by googlefudge
First increasing levels of technology do not by necessity entail increasing consumption.
What you claim is not an undeniable fact, and even if it were you should present the evidence to support it.
Which you have not done, you simply claimed it as truth with no backing whatsoever.

Second a space faring society need not have higher levels of consumpt ontinue to refuse to enter the debate
why should any of us bother to listen to your opinions?

Throughout history, every increased level of technology has been accompanied by an increased level of consumption. The people of colonial America consumed more resources per capita than did hunter-gatherer societies. It requires a far greater amount and variety of resources to support that level of society. People of industrial America consumed far more resources per capita than did the people of colonial America. That level of society requires a far greater amount and variety of resources to support it. The people of post-industrial America are consuming resources at an even more rapacious level than that of industrial America. And there is no end in sight to the cycle of increasing levels of technology being accompanied by increased levels of consumption. It is a fair inference to assume they will continue to march in lockstep into the future.

What is unsupported is your seeming contention that you can uncouple this historically observable link between greater technology and increased consumption. THAT, my friend, is a proposition that has no backing whatsoever.

1. Any population will expand to the limits of its food supply.
2. Likewise, demand for resources will always expand to the limit of a society's capacity to provide them.
3. An increased level of technology will result in higher levels of productivity, which will, in turn, drive levels of demand even higher.
4. Therefore, using technology to solve problems of excessive demand are doomed to failure. It is the cause of the problem it is seeking to solve.
5. The only way off this cycle of ever-increasing supply/demand is to quit viewing increasing technology as the cure to every problem. The answer is to promote sustainable living and an appropriate level of technology.

That is my position. I will continue to restate it for as long as you continue to respond to my posts.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If humanity did not develop agriculture, and every other advance that comes from living in civilisation
and not in tiny tribes, we would/will not develop the technology to leave this tiny death trap of a rock
we live on, and would at some, not to distant point, go extinct.

As the point of all life from an evolutionary standpoint is to survive and ife as the waiting room to the eternal
afterlife their fictional god has promised them.

If humanity did not develop agriculture, and every other advance that comes from living in civilisation
and not in tiny tribes, we would/will not develop the technology to leave this tiny death trap of a rock
we live on, and would at some, not to distant point, go extinct.

I don't really care as long as we don't go extinct while I'm alive.

Originally posted by tomtom232
I don't really care as long as we don't go extinct while I'm alive.

But... that's impossible, right? 🙂

If we went extinct, you'd be dead.

🙄

Originally posted by googlefudge
First increasing levels of technology do not by necessity entail increasing consumption.
What you claim is not an undeniable fact, and even if it were you should present the evidence to support it.
Which you have not done, you simply claimed it as truth with no backing whatsoever.

Second a space faring society need not have higher levels of consumpt ...[text shortened]... ontinue to refuse to enter the debate
why should any of us bother to listen to your opinions?

For your edification, the process I'm referring to is known as the Jevon's paradox, which... "is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Originally posted by rwingett
For your edification, the process I'm referring to is known as the [b]Jevon's paradox, which... "is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox[/b]

Why is it a paradox?

It's common sense. Look at the corresponding increase in population with the increase of technology over the past 150 years. Technology isn't the problem. It's people.

I'll leave it hang there.

Originally posted by rwingett
For your edification, the process I'm referring to is known as the [b]Jevon's paradox, which... "is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox[/b]

excellent, way to be condescending.

I've heard of it, and understand it. And broadly agree with it.

It doesn't undermine or contradict my argument.

The paradox would for example apply to increasing the mileage of cars, so they go further per gallon of petrol.
People then drive more miles thus preventing any decrease in overall fuel use, and possibly actually leading to
an overall increase.

However that is not the only thing more advanced technology could do.

You could invent a different way of powering cars that is renewable and non environmentally damaging, and
doesn't use petrol at all.
This would reduce petrol usage (in cars at least) to nothing.

Your objection is to unsustainable resource usage, and environmental damage.
I agree if all technology does is invent more efficient ways of doing what we are already doing then it wouldn't help.
However this is far from being all that technology can do.

There are a host of things we need to do to live sustainably, most if not all of them require technology.
Some of which is not yet mature or even invented yet.
We could make recycling more effective for example so it uses less energy and we can recycle more of our stuff
so we stop using resources unsustainably.
We can develop power sources that don't emit green house gasses so we stop messing with the climate.

Also there are limits to the paradox, there is a limit to how much light we need/use. too much hurts our eyes.
So at the limit making the lights more efficient reduces consumption of power.
It also reduces the unintended consequence of direct heating.


There are a host of other points I will make later.

But I will say this could be a good debate, if you are prepared (as I am) to be swayed by reasoned argument and/or
evidence from your position and actually engage in dialogue.

Preferably with out barbs or insults in every post.

Originally posted by rwingett
Throughout history, every increased level of technology has been accompanied by an increased level of consumption. The people of colonial America consumed more resources per capita than did hunter-gatherer societies. It requires a far greater amount and variety of resources to support that level of society. People of industrial America consumed far more res ...[text shortened]... my position. I will continue to restate it for as long as you continue to respond to my posts.

Ok, you have made an actual argument as to why you think your right.
This is great because rather than just claim you are wrong I can actually make a stab at why.
Which allows for an actual debate rather than a mud slinging match.


You make an observation (not a new one) that throughout history as technology has advanced, so has consumption.
The problem with this is that without a greater understanding of what is going on this doesn't tell you anything about
whether this trend will continue ad-infinitum into the future.

There are a whole host of reasons for increases of consumption, and while the technology may enable it to happen this
doesn't mean that technology is the cause of it happening.

If your hypothesis was right then all countries with roughly similar technological levels should have similar consumption.

They do not, by quite a margin.

The USA has a vastly higher per-capita consumption than the advanced European/Scandinavian nations which have for all
intents and purposes equal technology.
This means that there must be significant other factors that determine consumption other than technological level.
It is easy to see that consumption levels are enabled by the technology, but that is not the determining factor in the
actual level of consumption observed.
Which means that technology is not the thing we should be looking at curtailing to limit consumption levels to sustainable levels.

So it is not "a fair inference to assume they will continue to march in lockstep into the future."


as for your other points,

1) "Any population will expand to the limits of its food supply."

This is verifiably not true. Even in the natural world, populations are governed by a complex array of factors of which food/resource
supply is just one.
And even if it were true in the natural world (which it isn't) it is verifiably not true of us.
We have the ability to reason and make choices about how we behave, which enables us to be self limiting.
So, you see in western, rich, well educated, healthy, nations the population growth (ignoring immigration) is stable
or slightly falling, I.E. the population is self limiting due to people choosing to only have an average of 2 children per couple.
This is independent of food supply as we have more than enough food in the west and is entirely due to other factors.

Thus point 1 is manifestly wrong.

2) "Likewise, demand for resources will always expand to the limit of a society's capacity to provide them."

Point 1 is wrong, and you provide no backing up for point 2 either.
On similar grounds I say you haven't demonstrated this point, and can't claim it as a fact.
I would also say that given the argument at the top of my post, coupled with the refutation of point 1.
Point 2 is wrong as well.

3) "An increased level of technology will result in higher levels of productivity, which will, in turn, drive levels of demand
even higher."

This is not true. Demand is influenced by a great many factors, at the moment we have far more manufacturing capacity than
we are using. This alone means this point is manifestly wrong.


4) "Therefore, using technology to solve problems of excessive demand are doomed to failure. It is the cause of the
problem it is seeking to solve."

As points 1, 2, and 3, are demonstrably wrong, the inference of point 4 is thus unjustified.

5) "The only way off this cycle of ever-increasing supply/demand is to quit viewing increasing technology as the cure to
every problem. The answer is to promote sustainable living and an appropriate level of technology."

And likewise point 5 relies on the above being right.
Points 1 through 3 are wrong, 4 is unsupported, and thus 5 is also unsupported.



Given this your position as stated is incorrect and/or unsupported.

Do you have any further arguments in favour, or any response to my rebuttal?