The avowed aim of corporations and governments is to bring poorer countries up to a first world level of prosperity and consumerism. — Janus

That's a dumb aim. It's ought to be change our patterns of consumption so that we don't end life on the planet as we know it.

The world economy would collapse. — Janus

Our measures of "the world economy" are basically rigged bullshit geared towards the growth of corporations and the valorization of capital. Being held hostage to shitty measures of economic growth is not a reason to commit mass ecocide.

Any curtailment of business as usual would involve immense human suffering, — Janus

This is your brain on capitalism. No, it would not. Curtialment of business practises under capitalism in which waste, excess, and low cost manfacturing is a necessity would result in immense human suffering. In fact, it already results in immense human suffering. What is needed is a change in the way we structure our economy, not systematic world ecocide.

It's a hard fact to face, but seems inevitable unless someone can come up with a magic solution. Can you imagine any? — Janus

Idk if you've been paying attention but there are these things called fossil fuels which we need to keep in the ground. There is also this thing called capitalism which we need to end for good. In fact the former is premised on the latter. It takes a tragic lack of imagination to imagine that planetary eugenics programs rather than changing the economy is the solution to climate change. Green fascism is still fascism, not the least worst part of which it is born out of sheer laziness of thought and inconsideration.

That's a dumb aim. It's ought to be change our patterns of consumption so that we don't end life on the planet as we know it. — StreetlightX

I agree, but a solution to that problem doesn't seem to be in the offing.

Our measures of "the world economy" are basically rigged bullshit geared towards the growth of corporations and the valorization of capital. Being held hostage to shitty measures of economic growth is not a reason to commit mass ecocide. — StreetlightX

Again I agree, but achieving de-growth, which seems to be essential at this stage, does not appear to be possible without collapsing the current system. Collapsing the current system is probably a very good idea, but it would involve untold human suffering; and it is always those at the bottom of the food chain who get thrown under the bus first, and that is inhumane, so—where does that leave us in practical terms?

This is your brain on capitalism. No, it would not. Curtialment of business practises under capitalism in which waste, excess, and low cost manfacturing is a necessity would result in immense human suffering. In fact, it already results in immense human suffering. What is needed is a change in the way we structure our economy, not systematic world ecocide. — StreetlightX

This is just nice words unless you can outline a comprehensive and actionable plan for such a radical change. I've never seen anything approaching that. I'm all for the destruction of the evil that is capitalism, but I can't envision any way to do it without collapsing the infrastructures which have been built on the foundations of capitalism.

And even if a practicable way were imaginable; I can't see the populace acquiescing, given that we are all wedded to our lifestyles and current levels of prosperity.

Idk if you've been paying attention but there are these things called fossil fuels which we need to keep in the ground. There is also this thing called capitalism which we need to end for good. In fact the former is premised on the latter. It takes a tragic lack of imagination to imagine that eugenics programs rather than changing the economy is the solution to climate change. Green fascism is still fascism. — StreetlightX

I'm talking about the problems faced, not advocating anything, least of all "eugenics programs". For example to transition from the massive infrastructure based on fossil fuels to "green technologies" cannot be achieved overnight; it will take decades (even if the political will were one hundred percent there).

"It's not practical to end capitalism so mass planetary eugenics and human ecocide is all we're capable of".

No.

What solutions to this problem do you think would be the most effective, even if they might not be morally ‘good’? — Schrödinger's cat

War, famine, plague, and wild beasts human bestiality. The four horsemen of the applesauce.

But in case that's not enough, we can add in the flood, and the fire of global warming. Problem solved!

"It's not practical to end capitalism so mass planetary eugenics and human ecocide is all we're capable of".

No. — StreetlightX

I haven't said that. I'm only talking about what I can envision, but I'm not very smart, and I'm very open to other ideas and possibilities. But no one (that I know) seems to be presenting actionable possibilities.

So, it seems to me that even if we could, even if we were willing to, immediately end capitalism, that it would involve a great deal of suffering and death. That might just be the best thing for humanity long term, but if it involves a great deal of suffering and death, then it is morally unacceptable, so what to do?

At this point, humanity is not guaranteed to be able to find a way out that involves little suffering and death, as unacceptable as that may seem.

So, it seems to me that even if we could, even if we were willing to, immediately end capitalism, that it would involve a great deal of suffering and death. — Janus

Just saying this doesn't make it true. Ending a regime of private property doesn't inherently involve "a great deal of suffering and death". In fact it ought to alleviate much of it.

Although I am not averse to eating just one single billionare just for funsies and as an example.

Just saying this doesn't make it true. — StreetlightX

Yes, I could be wrong about that of course. I acknowledge I am speaking from within my own limited imagination.

Although I am not averse to eating just one single billionare just for funsies and as an example. — StreetlightX

While I would have no moral objection; I don't think I could overcome my aversion at the thought of consuming human flesh.

Yes, I could be wrong about that of course. I acknowledge I am speaking from within my own limited imagination. — Janus

I'm just saying: between planetary eugenics and the end of private property, one of these stands out as far more harmful than the other.

While I would have no moral objection; I don't think I could overcome my aversion as the thought of consuming human flesh. — Janus

It'd be communal lunch I'd imagine.

I'm just saying: between planetary eugenics and the end of private property, one of these stands out as far more harmful than the other. — StreetlightX

Yes, I am totally opposed to eugenics. I feel some resistance towards giving up my own property, but if everyone was on board I'd go along with it, I suppose.

It'd be communal lunch I'd imagine. — StreetlightX

Not sure if I can make it, :wink:

own property — Janus

Private, not personal property! I.e. property used for making capital - not your toothbrush and couch.

What about house and land, as in principal place of dwelling?

And then what?

If it's not being rented out, it's personal, as far as I understand. Although there are probably lots of debate about land and its use.

When I retired I moved from Sydney to near Nimbin on 15 acres. I would like to let others live on the property, to share what the land has to offer and some of the workload maintaining it. It's two thirds forest, but a lot of weeds, and the rest needs mowing/ slashing. So, I've thought about more communal living, but it's not easy; what happens if you come to dislike the people sharing the land with you?

So, I've thought about more communal living, but it's not easy; what happens if you come to dislike the people sharing the land with you? — Janus

I'm not sure. It'd be something I'd like to explore more.

So, I've thought about more communal living, but it's not easy; what happens if you come to dislike the people sharing the land with you? — Janus

That means you rushed into things and didn't know yourself much, let alone not knowing the people. This happens a lot in an organization during hiring.

I haven't done it; just thought about it.

This is your brain on capitalism. — StreetlightX

Time for you to tell us what you mean by "capitalism." And what countries do you imagine are capitalist countries? To say, for example, that the US is a capitalist country is akin to saying the US is a democracy. Both in this case convenient fictions, but fictions they are. And when you have told us what it is, then tell us what you would replace it with.

Of course if your idea of capitalism corresponds to no place, then likely your ideas for replacing it would be equally insubstantial. So do try to put a little meat on the bones, eh.

Part of my reason for asking is that an online search yielded too many different answers.

Time for you to tell us what you mean by "capitalism." And what countries do you imagine are capitalist countries? — tim wood

A socio-economic system in which one class, the working class, has been seperated from the means of production, which are controlled and owned instead by a seperate class, the capitalist class. This in turn leading to the pursuit of profit as the defining motive of all socio-political life. Capitalism is a more or less global system with the US right at its very heart. There's nothing fictional about it, and you would do well to minimally educate yourself about the world you live in.

The alternative of course is to liquidate the capitalist class and place the means of production back into the hands of the working class, who make up the vast majority of this Earth. This latter would be a true democracy, one in which the economy would be placed back into the hands of the people, unlike the pseudo-democracies we have today in which impersonal market mechanisms that systematically favour capital over workers continue to immeserate billions of people across the planet.

Capitalism is a more or less global system with the US right at its very heart. There's nothing fictional about it, and you would do well to minimally educate yourself about the world you live in. — StreetlightX

(Agreed!)
Hmm. This is what I find online:

"Capitalism is an economic ideology in which the means of production is controlled by private business. This means that individual citizens run the economy without the government interfering in production or pricing. Instead, pricing is set by the free market. This means that value is based on supply and demand and the relationship between producers and consumers.

"Capitalism is very different from socialism and communism, in which the government maintains tight control of the economy. The United States is arguably the most well-known country with a capitalist economy, which many citizens see as an essential part of democracy and building the "American Dream." Capitalism also taps into the American spirit, being a more "free" market when compared to the more government-controlled alternatives.

"Despite this distinction, the United States falls short of the top 10 in terms of the most capitalistic countries in a 2021 report from The Heritage Foundation and Global Finance Magazine. According to the Heritage Organization's Economic Freedom of the World Index, the top 10 countries with the most capitalist economies (ranked from highest score to lowest) are:

"Top 10 Countries with the Most Capitalist Economies - 2021 Heritage Index of Economic Freedom:
Singapore (Freedom score: 89.7)
New Zealand (83.9)
Australia (82.4)
Switzerland (81.9)
Ireland (81.4)
Taiwan (78.6)
United Kingdom (78.4)
Estonia (78.2)
Canada (77.9)
Denmark (77.8)"
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/capitalist-countries

Another listing, top five: Germany, US, China, India, Japan.

And then there is state-controlled capitalism
"In his new book, The End of the Free Market, Bremmer, who runs Eurasia Group, a political risk consulting firm, argues that corporations based in free-market economies face growing competition from companies based in state capitalist economies."
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126835124
----------------------------------

The alternative of course is to liquidate the capitalist class and place the means of production back into the hands of the working class, who make up the vast majority of this Earth. This latter would be a true democracy, one in which the economy would be placed back into the hands of the people, unlike the pseudo-democracies we have today in which impersonal market mechanisms that systematically favour capital over workers continue to immeserate billions of people across the planet. — StreetlightX

Let's see. The capitalist class are those who own and control. We liquidate those - does that include stock-holders? Not sure what that means, but I imagine it means no more owners or controllers. In this your context I am not sure what "means of production" is, but that is "placed back" into the hands of the working class. Does that mean they become the owners and controllers?

And profit. Are you against profit? Do you know what profit is? I am sure you do, but for those who do not, profit is the excess of revenue over expense. And if you're in any business whatsoever, you had better have a profit - no profit, no business.

I am not looking for an argument. I asked for a definition and you provided. But I think you've lost the forest for the trees. Your simple use of categorical terms means you're not in any real world. The problems are real enough, but no solution legible, readable, discernable, workable through the lens of your representation.

Democracy, capitalism, communism, socialism, & etc. These are all ideologies, none actually existing in anything like a pure form. The most that can be said is that societies, cultures, nations have aspects of all. And likely what would work best is the right mix of all.

The Heritage Foundation is right-wing rag whose measure of "freedom" is just how much markets are allowed to operate without any so-called interference from the government. That Singapore - an authoritarian single-party state that sues its opponents out of existence and functions as a model for China with sham elections - ranks at the top of it's "freedom scale" reflects the fact that its corporate and individual taxes are amongst the lowest in the world. Only Ameicans are stupid enough to think that capitalism equates to the so-called 'free market'. That's an asinine definition made by propagandists with no sense of history.

But listen - I'm not debating capitalism with someone whose knowledge comes from a single Google search. I don't debate with kindergarden level ignorance.

Wasn't debating or looking for. But I note that your invective, as usual, has mastered your sense.

Yeah, nah, you just thought could Google your way to telling me what the 'real world' consisted of despite knowing nothing about the subject you're talking about, all while quoting literal propaganda because you could not even begin to define some basic terms among the most concequent for all of life on Earth.

The situation is rather lamentable: The way the world's structutred, it's easy to f**k, not easy to deal with (take care of) what comes after (children). Incels might wanna have a word with me. If overpopulation becomes a real issue (not if but when), governments will have to get involved i.e. there'll be regulations on family size (vide 1 child policy, China) and very soon sex (the root cause of it all) will become government business. In short, continuing along this trajectory is to, slowly but surely, invite the government into our bedrooms. Does anyone want that to happen? Buck up people, we need to get our act together if we don't want to offer our family lives to the government on a silver platter.

The solution: Our burning desire to be left alone!

What solutions to this problem do you think would be the most effective, even if they might not be morally ‘good’? — Schrödinger's cat

This is actually easy, but people simply don't understand it.

Population growth will end when the fertility rate is below 2.0+.

That fertility rate lower than 2.0+ that has universally happened when people have become more prosperous. Just look at where you have high fertility rates (rapid population growth): in the most poorest countries. Seriously:

Rank /Country/Fertility rate in 2019 (births/woman)
1 Niger 6.824
2 Somalia 5.978
3 DR Congo 5.819
4 Mali 5.785

Niger, Somalia, DR Congo and Mali are one of the most poorest countries in the World.

(Fertility rates have GONE DOWN. Dramatically. All over the World. Thanks to the increasing prosperity and the social change because of it.)


Making people more prosperous, to eradicate poverty is not morally bad at all. Have social security, pensions, the ability that a single person without a family can live well when he or she isn't able to work anymore and isn't forced to be a beggar. So there is a truly moral solution to this. It's not about condoms, it's about that you don't have to make children in order for them to look after you when you are old. Then people don't have to have huge families to survive.

Just stop with narrative of the end of the World is nigh because of this and we have to repent our hedonistic materialism and everything else in our society and have something totally else!!!

(Unfortunately, that I think is what people want to hear when debating this issue.)

Just stop with narrative of the end of the World is nigh and we have to repent our hedonistic materialism!!! — ssu

What has materialism got to do with it? Fertility rates in developing countries are controlled mainly by age of marriage, length of breastfeeding and mortality (or morbidity) prior to 50. None of those factors are related to materialism in any way whatsoever. They're largely cultural changes and medical/healthcare improvements. Even the cultural lag effect (having excess 'insurance' children because of a perception of infant mortality which lags behind actual infant mortality) is mostly cultural and partly medical/healthcare. The value of a child workforce is mostly related to the balance of rural/urban jobs. The opposition to contraception is religious. The unawareness of, or lack of access to, contraception is mostly cultural, partly political...

I'm not seeing materialism even in the top twenty...How does owning a second car have the slightest effect?

All you've shown is a weak correlation* with an extremely vague measure.

(* are you seriously suggesting Poland is wealthier than the United States?)

Fertility rates in developing countries are controlled mainly by age of marriage, length of breastfeeding and mortality (or morbidity) prior to 50. - All you've shown is a weak correlation* with an extremely vague measure. — Isaac

The link between wealth and fertility is quite well understood.

The decreasing relationship between the two variables demonstrates the connection between fertility choices and economic considerations. In general, poor countries tend to have higher levels of fertility than rich countries.

In particular, women tend to give birth to no fewer than three children in countries where GDP per capita is below $1,000 per year. In countries where GDP per capita is above $10,000 per year, women tend to give birth to no more than two children.

This decreasing relationship between fertility and income is well known to economists and demographers alike. In addition, it holds true over time: Rich countries, such as the U.S., have experienced a remarkable decline in their fertility rate as they became rich. Also, the relationship holds at the individual level, as rich families tend to have fewer children than poor families.

It's one of those things demographics has know for years:

A large literature examines the causes of fertility decline in the developing world over the past half-century. This literature is not easily summarized, but there is broad agreement that development is a key driver of changes in reproductive behavior, as hypothesized by classical demographic transition theory (Davis, 1945; Kirk, 1996; Notestein, 1945).

Now the demographic transition theory and it's four steps explain well what has happened. Especially it's third stage is what crucial here to understand:

Third Stage:

It is also characterised as a population stage because the population continues to grow at a fast rate. In this stage, birth rate as compared to the death rate declines more rapidly. As a result, population grows at a diminishing rate. This stage witnesses a fall in the birth rate while the death rate stays constant because it has already declined to the lowest minimum. Birth rate declines due to the impact of economic development, changed social attitudes and increased facilities for family planning. Population continues to grow fast because death rate stops falling whereas birth rate though declining but remains higher than death rate.

But what is needed is prosperity, for there to be universal education, for the situation of women to improve (and be taken into the workforce) and for all these issues like changing social attitudes to happen. If that economic take off doesn't happen (like in Mali, Somalia or the DR Congo), people truly seek shelter from economic distress by having children. In the wealthier economies hardly anybody thinks like this.

Family planning has always been something of an economic issue, you know.

This really isn't at all vague.

The alternative of course is to liquidate the capitalist class and place the means of production back into the hands of the working class, who make up the vast majority of this Earth. This latter would be a true democracy, one in which the economy would be placed back into the hands of the people, unlike the pseudo-democracies we have today in which impersonal market mechanisms that systematically favour capital over workers continue to immeserate billions of people across the planet. — StreetlightX

I think the counter to this is small businesses. Small businesses use capital to make and sell goods and services and perhaps make a profit. It sounds like you are simply against large businesses that have acquired massive wealth. Are you against small businesses because they can turn into large ones? Much of economics is simply about incentives.. People are more incentivized when they gamble their time and resources and make money on it (the heart of capitalism really). Can you separate small business capitalism with monopolistic capitalism?

Address something I've written, or just repeat your existing claim as if this were you own personal blog. Either way I don't really mind, but I'm not going to respond to the latter...definition of madness and all that...

For some radicalized person somewhere, COVID-19, something even worse, is just what the world needs for its overpopulation problem. Such people have been, for the most part, fictional but fact is stranger than fiction!