Dear Foxy,

Human existence has seen many failures and struggles, and I don't see the land of droughts and flooding rains as being any different.

I think that the level of sophistication needed to support 8.1 billion people on the earth is nothing short of extraordinary, yet for Nathan "sophistication in many ways has had a negative impact on people's lives and the planet overall". Nearly 99% of humans would be dead without sophistication, so while you may marvel at the survival skills of hunter gatherers, be mindful of the life that sophistication gives to nearly all humans alive today.

Dear Fester,

«I think of the social and scientific advances as tools.»

Definitely, but tools for what?

Mainly for allowing a larger human population.

«I doubt that the world's population would be growing were women in control of their fertility,»

Women have instincts that make them want babies.
At present, the hardships and stress of raising children in urban settings seem to slightly outweigh these instincts.

«I don't see population growth as a direct consequence of an advanced civilisation.»

Perhaps not further growth, but having population levels stagnant more or less where they are now, because if population levels drop a bit, then female instincts will again top the hardships.

«Rather, I think that stable or even declining populations are the norm in them.»

I think so too, stable or only slightly declining, and that's not good enough.

Maintaining a high human population requires science and science requires a high human population.

Yes, besides its ability to maintain a high human population, science does provide some other benefits, but in my view, the damage caused by a high human population outweighs these benefits.

We cannot and should not stop it cold-turkey, and have 99% die, but rather we should aim at a gradual reduction by non-replacement.

---

Dear Nathan,

«I prefer to deal with people who are peaceful and content with their lives and even some who are lazy. They may have been busy all day and need time to rest and relax.»

Everyone's body needs a rest and a good night's sleep, that's not laziness.

If one is 100% lazy and won't eat unless an apple falls into their mouth, that's fine, but the kind of lazy people I was referring to could be just 90% lazy, who say, "I'm hungry, let me grab and eat my neighbour's cow", or "let's get on the dole so others feed me". Or the 80%-lazy who say "let's rob the bank and be rich". They lack the sophistication of hackers, so are likely to fail in their lousy attempt to commit the perfect crime, then end up in jail at our expense!

Hi Yuyutsu,

You say; "We cannot and should not stop it cold-turkey, and have 99% die, but rather we should aim at a gradual reduction by non-replacement."

Without a healthy birth rate, you get an ageing population, and old people simply cannot adequately provide for themselves, like battery hens that are not capable of laying eggs. In a "perfect" Orwellian society you would simply euthanize all "non productive's" those too old to be of further use, those defected by birth or accident, those of habitual criminal or lazy intent, those young destined for breeding stock, but surplus to requirements, that is too many breeders, painlessly disposed off, and in one last act of usefulness their remains become fertiliser for increased food production for the "good" in society.

Is that the "perfect" world you desire? You have previously on this forum spoke of a 97% population reduction. The above would probably only require a 30% to 40% culling, far more people on the planet enjoying a healthy happy lifestyle than simply those surviving through unplanned control measures.

p/s In a magnanimous gesture of recognition, a few exceptions to the above could be made for those who have made an outstanding contribution to society throughout their lifetime, such people as 'Fearless Leader' and his cohort. They should be able to live on and expire naturally at a ripe old age as society thanks them for their unselfish contribution of above and beyond that of the ordinary citizen! It makes me feel like singing the new national anthem; "Fearless Leader How Great Thou Art' you must learn the anthem, it will be a requirement in the future, to demonstrate your loyalty. There will be no place in future society for the counter productive disloyal types, those with impure thoughts!

Dear Paul,

We got ourselves into a corner, so we need to turn back and no one is saying that it will be easy.
Yes, a reduction of human population to around 100-200 million people is necessary, but I never suggested that this is done at once over a single generation: I estimate it reasonable to be done within 100-200 years.

«In a "perfect" Orwellian society you would simply euthanize all "non productive's" those too old to be of further use»

If you read "1984" by Orwell, you could see that they were not after people's bodies but only after their souls. Despite horrific tortures, the "hero" of the story was kept physically alive under doctor-supervision and once he was converted to love Big-Brother, he even got a new set of teeth to replace all his teeth that were broken during the torture.

Dear Yuyutsu,

"Women have instincts that make them want babies.
At present, the hardships and stress of raising children in urban settings seem to slightly outweigh these instincts."

Do you see the contradiction there? In developed nations where women have more rights and education you don't see high birth rates. Also, when women are given access to birth control, the evidence would suggest that their fertility drops to the extent that were it widely available to women the world's population would stop growing.

https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/09/08/how-birth-control-girls-education-can-slow-population-growth/

So contrary to your opinion that sophistication is the cause of a growing population, it is in fact the case that the denial of sophistication (birth control and education) that is the cause.

The reality Yuyutsu is that many do not share your concerns of overpopulation. Some even think a growing population a big advantage as it provides cheap labor to keep their economies strong.

Dear Fester,

I think you've misunderstood the points I was trying
to make regarding "sophistication." As Pascoe and
others tried to point out - Aboriginal culture had
more to offer than the colonists realised.

Go back and re-read what I wrote.