Why is inmoral? It's just population orderly control, and it will at some point just get constant so wealth will be limited to that constant and it will not grow anymore, economy doesn't need to grow to improve human welfare.
It's completely sane to think and discuss how we can in someway "delete" population.
It is immoral to think the world would be better with fewer people because what you're really saying is, 3 Billion people or whatever number shouldn't exist. If you think not existing is a good thing then we wouldn't be having this conversation would we?
I don't think anyone is saying those 3 billion people doesn't need to exists, no one. It's just give education teach people to have healthy families, the constant is a balance of population given by health, nature and economics.
If you're saying the world is overpopulated by X then you're saying X amount of people who exist shouldn't exist.
No matter how you paint it, you think it is a good thing for you to exist but not others.
"Balance of health, nature and economics" nice words for basically "I want fewer poor people in the world so let's help them sterilize themselves" instead of creating wealth which isn't inherently immoral and would actually have a positive impact if done rightly
There are too many people on the planet as it is. Earth Overshoot Day, the day by which we've collectively used up whatever the Earth can generate in a year, is moving earlier in the year. In 2021, it was July 29th.
From there on out, we're depleting the Earth's reserves - some of which can never come back.
This is, in my view, immoral. That's how I view things without giving back.
Your comments seem to try to twist the arguments into some sort of Thanos-snap, as if certain currently living people do not have a right to live. That is a strawman, no one is arguing that.
If you think X amount of poor people should not exist in the future then you must also think X amount of poor people should not exist in any other time period. Or do you think somehow it was a good thing to be poor in the past but now is bad?
The reality is that if you go back far enough your ancestors were poor by modern standards, and if someone have done what you want to do to the poor today you wouldn't exist.
It is immoral to want for others what you don't want for yourself
If you're saying the world is overpopulated by X then you're saying X amount of people who exist shouldn't exist.
The observation is that a given population and affluence level cannot sustainably exist. Not as a matter of morality or prescription, but as a simple matter of fact. The concept of overshoot, well established in ecology, is one that specifically notes that populations can for a finite period of time, exceed long-term carrying capacity, but will in time collapse. Overshoot itself --- population in excess of sustainable capacity --- occurs because of lag effects. Consequences of actions follow those actions, but not necessarily immediately.
Population dynamics, like diseases, don't distinguish on ethnicity, religioun, ancestry, or ideology. It is true that the poor tend to bear the brunt more heavily. I ascribe no moral justification to this, though theological and ideological doctrines of the past and present very frequently do, to their discredit.
Respondind that a fact may be legitimately rejected simply because its implications are too painful to consider is wishful thinking, the informal fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam appeal to consequences.
Adding to that error, you then invent the utterly unsupported claim that those making the case for overpopulation mean for any reduction measures to only apply to others. This is in fact entirely a fiction of your own creation in this discussion. It does of course make answering the claim all the more difficult. I point out that as a fabulous claim there is no need to do so.
As I've noted before in this thread, you seem bent on repeatedly dragging this discussion into moral territory, in a manner which makes substantial and productive discussion difficult. It would benefit the discussion, and you might learn something, were you to not do so.
I have asked repeatedly for what exactly are the limiting factors that will make population unsustainable and there hasn't been satisfactory answers that could defend your position or make me rethink.
You should be able to defend a position that other people think is immoral specially if you think is morally good.
The Wikipedia link and theory is based on a computer model. No model can predict future innovation because part of future innovation is non linear and hence unpredictable utilizing current trends.
So you have something you can't predict (future innovation and how that will affect energy and new materials).
The burden of proof is on you given that you want to do something unnatural and immoral: make sterile millions of people.
If you want to sterilize yourself I don't agree with it but I cant stop you but that's not enough for you folks, you presume you have the right to promote mass sterilization so yes I'm going to say it for what it is: immoral.
You're also showing a pattern of deflecting and projecting rather than addressing the specific issues addressed by others.
On Wikipedia: I link to it as a general reference. Again, there is a long and large literature, the article is just one of numerous jumping-off points. There are others, such as Google Scholar:
Arguing based on unknowables ("future innovation is non linear and hence unpredictable utilizing current trends") is literally an appeal to ignorance. Arguing from the point that a premise is unknown and unknowable does not prove conclusions premised on that premise being true:
You are putting words in my mouth regarding what you're again fabricating as another's argument. I said no such thing, that is again your fiction. I'll merely respond that in advocating unsustainable population overshoot that you are committing many billions to lives of poverty and misery. And committing the fallacy of composition to boot.
Burden of proof relates to factual claims, not moral ones. Those are ultimately goverened by the is-ought relation.
And if you'll read elsewhere in this thread, I've actually already addressed your specious and repeated question:
Again, I await your answer to my first question, though with low expectations.
Serious question: Are you commenting to try to better understand a question and viewpoints about it, or only to promote your own views and cast aspersions? Because your comments strongly suggest the latter.
Typescript is very easy, super powerful and lovely. If you are having problems is because there is something you are still not getting, remember is just Javascript but with a super set of tools that make it beautiful
Over stimulation is the problem. You think you can drink one beer or two, but at the end you can't control the need to drink a third more. You know that you can only have one or two cigarrete a day but at the end you can't.
Sometimes handling addiction is not about reasoning. And is even worse if you are a kid which don't have the maturity to understand addiction. I think the same about the parent post. Teach them about addiction, explain to them "you see this phone? You will be addicted by it, so until you are an adult I will protect you from this."
It is interesting to speculate of what will be the end result in terms of learned behaviors. I was born without computers near me so I and I became obsessed with them as I was starting teenage years. Because of this, I can handle excessive boredom and I can find something amusing for myself without relying on someone force feeding me content they deem appropriate for me. I am not sure future adults will be able to sit still without a screen.
To be fair, my parents were about as worried as I am today, but they still purchased Pentium 120, which I promptly OC'ed and let me and my siblings to go nuts for a while until we we overboard ( I forgot the details now, but dad took PC to his shop after that incident and they couldn't just password protect it, because by then we learned how to remove password in BIOS and rely on 'keys pressed marked' trick to guess it ). It is not that different now. The face of it changed though.
Point is.. kids are kids. They don't understand addiction. Best you can do is to attempt to explain it. Even knowing that, I am still planning to severely limit phone use.
I use Hyperdock https://bahoom.com/hyperdock
for macOS windows splitscreen and other features that makes the experience very very good and more similiar to windowsOS
.net is very easy, I have more than 11 years of experience in .net doing gaming and web development and believe me is a very easy language with a very powerful ide and a lots of documentation.
I'm from Costa Rica and I'm not aware of that, drug trafficking like what? We as other countries in the planet has issues with illegal drugs yes is true, but never in any way this has influenced into our culture.
You mean from Colombia to the US (probably more accurate to say Peru these days)? By this logic the US has a huge drug trafficking culture which may or may not be true. Besides, I think the actual drug trafficking route at this stage (around Central Amercia) is by boat to Mexico where it is brought across the border by land (one of the many ways it is imported).
Certain parts of the US have that culture, like traders on wall street who work 100 hour weeks, yes. Part of the culture doesn't mean it's everyone. I don't know where that lands for CR, I just know someone who went there specifically for recreational use because it's decriminalized. My point was only to be aware of this potential cultural difference, and that it may not be for everyone. I'm sorry if that is hurtful to anyone. I should have said that drug use is decriminalized and accepted, which is the real difference.
No, we don't have any special design for our homes. It's just that we have lots of energy for our small country, all from our hydro plants and our volcanos, we have so much energy that we sell it to 6 more countries in the central America region.
Vernacular design is just very localized design using local materials and suited to local weather. It's like adobe homes in the American Southwest and igloos in Alaska.
What is a typical home like there? How are they heated and cooled?
Our house in Costa Rica was built with cinder blocks on a concrete pad. Very different from the wooden framing + drywall in my house in the US.
My house doesn’t have any heating but does have mini-split AC units in the bedroom that we usually run for 3 hours in the afternoon if someone is going to sleep in that room.
There is a concept of having a ceiling fan next to some windows at the top of the wall near the roof. The idea is to have the fan pull the hot air up and out that window, creating a nice draft. Usually you have this in the main living area. They have a name for this that escapes me at the moment.
Ceiling fans used like that is an old fashioned method that was common in the Deep South of the US before AC, I believe. I would say that fits with what I am talking about.
Here we have a very non extreme weather, so no cooling and no heating needed at all in our homes, we use steel rods, concrete blocks and concrete all according to the anti-seismic codes here and we also use protection for the humidity.
The dangers we have from a climate point of view are storms that make our rivers overflow and causes lots of damage to our towns.
Thank you. If there is no "need" for heat or cooling, likely there is some degree of vernacular architecture and passive solar design going on. It's just so normal you likely don't realize it is any different from how homes get built elsewhere and lifestyles elsewhere.
It's completely sane to think and discuss how we can in someway "delete" population.