problem as a viewpoint

[Cahoot]

Hi all.

“Problem” is an interesting paradigm that frames thought.

However, what is the basis for that paradigm?

Is not the so-called “problem” of overpopulation, or any problem for that matter, nothing more than a label applied to a perception of reality which fails to conform to a conceptual ideal of what reality should be?

Drop the conceptual ideal and the reality remains, devoid of the judgmental label of “problem.”

Or perhaps a problem is defined as a problem because it is something that is a cause for suffering. If so, then the assertion is that overpopulation is a problem because it is a cause for suffering.

The hypothesis from this assertion is: reduce the population to a number where it is not “over,” and suffering will cease. Does this sound plausible? When the population of the earth was less, was there no suffering?

One more consideration. Is not the term “overpopulation,” in fact an oxymoron? The term “over” implies unsupportable, and yet because the population exists then it is somehow being supported, so the current population is not unsupportable.

Even if a high density of population exists there cannot be over-population, though there can be a quality of life that does not measure up to an arbitrarily defined standard, or does not measure up to memories of the good old days.

Considering that there are vast inhabitable land areas of the earth that are currently uninhabited, and more areas that are sparsely inhabited, and considering that current instances of starvation are more a result of the politics of food distribution rather than lack of food on the planet, what number of persons is the maximum sustainable population for the planet?

Whatever that maximum number is, it cannot be exceeded for the conditions in which it exists, so “over-population” cannot exist.

[Carl G]

“Problem” is an interesting paradigm that frames thought.

However, what is the basis for that paradigm?

Is not the so-called “problem” of overpopulation, or any problem for that matter, nothing more than a label applied to a perception of reality which fails to conform to a conceptual ideal of what reality should be?

One cannot accurately say that "any problem" is "nothing more than a label". There may actually be a problem. Example, overpopulation: if the population continues to grow there will eventually be a limit exceeded, and would be a problem -- an issue, a discrepancy, an unbalance of equation -- which would need to be resolved (by humans or by nature).

Drop the conceptual ideal and the reality remains, devoid of the judgmental label of “problem.”

A material problem such as overpopulation cannot be divorced from context, i.e. the bio-system.

Or perhaps a problem is defined as a problem because it is something that is a cause for suffering. If so, then the assertion is that overpopulation is a problem because it is a cause for suffering.

The hypothesis from this assertion is: reduce the population to a number where it is not “over,” and suffering will cease. Does this sound plausible? When the population of the earth was less, was there no suffering?

The term overpopulation can be defined and described however we wish, as quality of life (however we would define that) or simply as ability of the ecosystem to sustain the life, or both, or other. There remains very real consequences for exceeding a limit.

Considering that there are vast inhabitable land areas of the earth that are currently uninhabited, and more areas that are sparsely inhabited,

Let's see...if we get rid of all the polar bears....and cut down the rest of those empty rainforests...nuke the big mountains down...

and considering that current instances of starvation are more a result of the politics of food distribution rather than lack of food on the planet,

...and if we get rid of all the greedy businesspeople and corrupt politicians...

what number of persons is the maximum sustainable population for the planet?

...12,546,277,423. I just channeled that. It was awesome.

What sort of question is that?

Whatever that maximum number is, it cannot be exceeded for the conditions in which it exists, so “over-population” cannot exist.

A semantic victory. Logic is king. Well done.

[Cahoot]

Hi Carl,

The ecosystem is sustaining the current population. The proof is that the current population exists.

Thus, this means that even without getting rid of polar bears, business people, corrupt politicians, mountains, rainforests, or channelers, the planet still is not overpopulated.

That is, unless you are comparing the effects of the current population upon quality of life, i.e. reality, to an arbitrary and imaginary ideal that you hold as a concept.

[DHodges]

The ecosystem is sustaining the current population.

Well, no. The resources are getting used up at a high rate.

It's kind of like a farm that is not run sustainably. In the short run it may be profitable, but in the long run the soil becomes used up and infertile.

That "long run" started a long time ago, and is no longer long.

[Carl G]

The ecosystem is sustaining the current population. The proof is that the current population exists.

That is not proof, as DHodges points out.

Thus, this means that even without getting rid of polar bears, business people, corrupt politicians, mountains, rainforests, or channelers, the planet still is not overpopulated.

I didn't argue that it is.

That is, unless you are comparing the effects of the current population upon quality of life, i.e. reality, to an arbitrary and imaginary ideal that you hold as a concept.

No, I wasn't comparing anything. My comments were meant to strictly address the thinking behind the words of your opening post, which, again, seemed to be about the nature of "problem" and as example, by extension, the definition of "overpopulation."

You haven't made a case yet that "any problem" is "nothing more than a label", which I thought was your main point.

And you haven't made a case yet for the planet being able to sustain the current population, by any but the crudest definition of the word; you say the proof is that the people exist today, but as DHodges showed, this does not mean the ecosystem can carry the present numbers over time.

[Cahoot]

Gentlemen, thank you for responding. It’s a pleasure to both read and address your comments and viewpoint.

I see that we are using the term “sustainable” in different ways.

I am using “sustainable” in the sense that the current population of the earth is currently sustained by the earth’s resources, given the conditions that exist now, conditions such as mankind’s current knowledge of utilizing those known resources.

If I am interpreting correctly, you are using “sustainable” in the sense of a future population that does not exist, under conditions that do not exist, yet are predicted based on current knowledge of utilizing resources.

Considering my use of the word: as I’ve already written, the proof that the current population is being sustained is that the current population exists. There is also a supporting correlation.

During my lifetime the population of the planet has more than doubled. It has steadily increased, and is still increasing. This doubling has been sustained. The smaller population at the beginning of my lifetime was sustainable, and the greater population now is sustainable.

If, during my lifetime, the population had been halved, then the population at the beginning of my lifetime would still have been sustainable for the conditions and time of its existence, and the future decrease in population would be sustainable for the conditions and time of its existence. However, if during my lifetime the population had been halved, which it was not, then the higher population that was sustainable for the conditions of its time would not have been sustainable, in terms of quantity, for the changed conditions of the future. But this sort of speculation is merely a mental exercise in the sense that a population cannot exist outside of the conditions of the time in which it does exist.

Will there be a future time from now in which a population is unsustainable? Only if a future population does not exist. As long as there is a population, it is being sustained, or else it would not exist.

Will the current population, in terms of numbers of individuals, be sustained into an infinite future? Probably not, seeing as nothing within relative existence lasts forever. So in that sense I would agree with your position, that the population is not infinitely sustainable. Eventually, on the scale of eternity, it is likely that conditions will evolve that render a population unsustainable. Then again, is there anything that is infinitely sustainable?

Calling this a problem is simply a viewpoint, as it is a viewpoint regarding the way things are.

Though, perhaps you are not using a scale of infinity when referring to sustainablity.

Carl, as you channeled a number of population that is sustainable, in terms of mankind’s current knowledge of harnessing the energy from earth’s resources to survive, perhaps you can channel a projected span of time for mankind’s sustainablity? ;)

[Carl G]

You win. The population is sustainable and all problems are simply viewpoint.

[DHodges]

I am using “sustainable” in the sense that the current population of the earth is currently sustained by the earth’s resources, given the conditions that exist now, conditions such as mankind’s current knowledge of utilizing those known resources.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Calling this a problem is simply a viewpoint, as it is a viewpoint regarding the way things are.

No, it is actually a problem. You are playing a post-modern word game.

[Cahoot]

If the current population is not sustainable, even though the population is so sustained that it is fat and getting fatter (which some experts say is a problem), then what number of people would constitute a sustainable population?

And, sustainable for how long? What span of years defines sustainable?

[Cahoot]

“For the first time in history, the birth rate of the whole developed world is well below replacement, and a significant part of it has passed the demographic point of no return.”

David P. Goldman
How Civilizations Die

[mental vagrant]

Cahoot is correct. The problem context is sustainability, let's assume it doesn't involve us leaving our solar system to keep it easy. We have the suns life cycle which incorporates some form of at least moderately desirable existential conditions, for humans on planet earth. With this in mind we then have to consider elements of our 'equation' such as living space, nutrition, etc; as variable functions. Not going to list everything i can think of and how it might change. As long as the sum of all functions is between some very small number more than 0 and not beyond 1, the population can be considered sustainable allowing measurments were taken frequently enough. Then if count superseeds 1, some form of natural cleansing would knock our numbers, how, when, by how much is academic. Perhaps we'd reach an equilibrium after, perhaps not.

Cahoot didn't suggest everything is peachy, nor the opposite.