There is a huge flaw with the logic of depopulation for the sake of future generations: TWO PEOPLE ARE ABOUT TWICE AS HAPPY AS ONE, ON AVERAGE

I cannot emphasize this enough.

Which would you, as an unborn spirit floating around in the pre-life, choose:

1: A 100% chance of being born into the world of 2100 under the business-as-usual scenario of a population of ~10 billion that has roughly stabilized

2: A 16% chance of being born into a world of 2100 like the depopulationists desire, with a population of 1.6 billion and no logical end to the shrinking in sight?

84% of those hypothetical people are clearly much worse off under option two, and it is not even clear that the remaining 16% are better off. Remember, 1/6th the people are going to produce one sixth the innovation, miracles, stories, friendship, art and acts of heroism as well.

We have the technology TODAY to sustain ~10 billion, though it is not implemented. The technology of the future will only be better. Population will already stop growing and eventually decline without any idiotic theories to protect the environment. Indeed, many nations such as S. Korea and Japan are already facing major demographic issues as their birthrates plummet.

Also, I disagree that it is difficult to be carbon negative. I am, several times over. The ideas and information I leave my children far offset the little bit of carbon I put into the atmosphere.

Now, I'm not going to tell you to not put the "unborn spirit floating around in the pre-life" in your arguements, but it would be nice if you didn't try to use it in the same response as "logic"

Actually, this is one of the classic manners of thinking about moral issues. I am sorry you skipped your philosophy class.

There is nothing wrong with using imaginary things in hypotheticals, either.

Does my unborn spirit produce that dastardly carbon?
How can I kill these spirits, or at least convince them to stop polluting our terrestrial dimension?

You seem to have a difficult time with the concept of a thought experiment. Oh well. Let me rephase the question more bluntly.

Would you rather have a 100% chance of being born into a world of 10 billion people in 2100, or a 16% chance of being born into a world of 1.6 billion?

I think the honest answer is obvious.

How do we know that the world's population will stabilize at 10 billion?

Some scientific possibilities to consider:

The higher the population, the higher the death toll in a plague scenario. 'The Coming Plague' is still a relevant book.

The higher the population, the more environmental refugees and casualties. The most likely scenario is in Bangladesh where rising sea levels will displace or kill millions sometime this century.

This is clearly a taboo subject.

The most ideal environmentalist is someone who doesn't own or rent a car, doesn't eat meat of any kind, uses as little electricity as possible, walks as much as possible, and produces no more than one child.

Does that describe anyone here?

Taboo as it is, I advocate Zero Population Growth, which means no more than 2 children per couple. It is a violation of human rights to forcibly limit the number of children a couple produces. it is also a violation of human rights to force women to keep pregnancies.

What I advocate is family planning. I won't point a finger at a couple for having 2 children.

But other couples (and they know who they are) are having five or more kids and they are ruining it for everyone.....and yes...contributing to global warming.

On the August 31st episode of Real Time With Bill Maher, the head of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, said that our hunger for meat has caused an explosion in the chicken and cow population, which in turn has increased methane levels (a greenhouse gas). But that applies to the developed world. If she wanted to go further she would also point out that the human population has tripled in just the last 100 years. Human population is tied to industrialization which is tied to global warming.

I have a different hypothetical. What if people are being born faster than souls are being created, and some people are being born without souls? This, I think, is far more plausible than a 10 billion soul surplus at the soul factory. After all, throughout history mankind had about 250 million people for a long time. The recent population explosion surely strained all those soul factories in heaven.

Additionally, the brain factories have been under significant strain as well, I imagine. Some people get off lucky, and have a soul but no brain. Some people have a brain and no soul. I'm sure, however, if you think hard, you can think of a few people with neither a soul nor a brain.

Meanwhile, we might have enough technology to feed 10 billion, but do we enough to clothe, educate, medicate, and house that many? In subsaharan Africa, there's plenty of naked illiterate people dying of malaria and aids. Is it right to bring a soul into the world only so it can suffer of malnutrition and poverty and untimely death?

In America, we are not the best but we are blessed: there is less than a 1% chance that a child will not live to see their first birthday. In one nation, there is an 18% the infant will die within that first year. The world over, 132 million babies are born each year, and 5.7 million of those babies die. Over 90% of those deaths are preventable and would be prevented in Japan, Sweden, and Singapore, the nations with the lowest Infant mortality rates.

5 million babies die each year of preventable causes. That is not hypothetical. That is fact. Please, factor that into your silly floating spirit game.

A 100% chance of being born into a world of 10 billion? So there are exactly 10 billion unborn souls floating around somewhere? Is that census data?

Yes, in your twisted nether-world lets all reproduce like rabbits on viagra. But please dont bring your inane thought experiments to planet earth.

After all, if I fail to realize that 16% chance in 2100 I'll get another chance in 2101, and in 2102 and in 2003, etc.. If there are such things as "an unborn spirit floating around in the pre-life", after all, I can expect to be born at some time (to a less crowded world.)

Your first logical error is to assume that "unborn spirits" are floating around. How many are there? A billion? A trillion? How long do they last? If they expire, as you assume, what causes them to expire, unborn? If they don't expire, why are they so impatient to be born SOON that they'd rather be born poor and miserable than just wait a while to be born rich and comfortable in a healthy earth?

Are they reborn over and over? What about hell -- if they misbehave before being born can they go straight to hell?

You see, you have wandered onto a pin and are dancing with angels.

When "spirits" start voting, we'll all be sunk.

Even accepting this absurd fantasy, you are still wrong.

Your apparently assume that these "unborn spirits" have a sell-by-date. You totally miss the important point of the quality of the life to which that "unborn spirit" is likely to be born at different population levels.

With 10 bn, 6 bn are sure to be in dire poverty, with high rates of infant death and all sorts of misery in life.

Also, with 10 bn, we are nearly certain to be destroying the earth's carrying capacity to the point that the population would collapse eventually due to the destruction of the soil layer, the fishing-out of the seas, the pollution of the air and climate change.

So, the 10bn scenario is full of misery and set to destoy itself shortly.

On the other hand, in the 1.6 bn scenario, every one would be born what we call "rich" (ie living like an American or a European lives now) and that scenario would be sustainable indefinitely.

The earth could support 1.6 bn rich humans indefinitely.

The earth is not going to be able to absorb the effluent put off by 10bn humans for any long period of time.

So, even IF there are "spirits," you're still wrong. I'd still rather have a 100% chance of being born rich and secure SOMEDAY (using my equally reasonable assumption that my "spirit" didn't have an expiriation date before which I was required to be born or "disappear" or something) than a 100% chance of being born right away with a 60% chance of living a short, stunted life of dire poverty and a 30% chance of dying before the age of 5.

You're just not thinking. Soft-headedness -- that's what it is what it is called. People who believe in little "spirits" floating around out there voting are sometimes afflicted with it.

Jan VanDenBerg

Oh, and you are not just incapable of clear thought, you are also convinced that you have lived a carbon negative life?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

That's ridiculous. What have you done to actually reduce carbon emissions? Your kids?

YOUR KIDS???

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

You know, it is just amazing the total lack of perspective people have when it comes to their own children, but this has to be some kind of a prize-winning case of my-kid myopia.

You expect others to think YOUR STUPID KIDS are so special that they are SURE to do something which will offset all your carbon emissions?

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Sad. But this is the typical human trying to think.

Jan VanDenBerg

Dhalgren:

How do we know that the world's population will stabilize at 10 billion?

We don't. Without government intervention, it will peak at less than that and start to decline before century's end. Left to their own devices and with access to birth control, people on the average choose to have too <i>few</i> children to sustain a population.

The higher the population, the more environmental refugees and casualties. The most likely scenario is in Bangladesh where rising sea levels will displace or kill millions sometime this century.

Yes, people are too dumb and slow to walk away from a sea-level rise projected at 2-3 centimeters per year. People will migrate, of course, but large numbers of deaths doesn't make any sense at all.

The most ideal environmentalist is someone who doesn't own or rent a car, doesn't eat meat of any kind, uses as little electricity as possible, walks as much as possible, and produces no more than one child.

Wrong, he or she has ten children, raises them well, resulting in adults who on the average are beneficial to the environment. You can do better than zero.

Taboo as it is, I advocate Zero Population Growth, which means no more than 2 children per couple.

You need to work on your math skills. Zero Population Growth implies about 2.1 children per couple (the .1 comes from the fact that some children will die before they can reproduce). Clearly, that means some must have three or more.

It is a violation of human rights to forcibly limit the number of children a couple produces. it is also a violation of human rights to force women to keep pregnancies.

Of course, it is even a bigger violation of human rights to kill someone, but that is another debate entirely. In any case, the solution for too low a population has nothing to do with abortion, but rather the subsidization of children's educations, upbringing, etc.

But other couples (and they know who they are) are having five or more kids and they are ruining it for everyone.....and yes...contributing to global warming.

It depends on the family and the children. I am massively carbon negative. I would estimate I am responsible for the <i>reduction</i> of about fifty typical Americans' worth of CO2 every year. My children will be raised well and will likely be friends of the environment as well.

On the August 31st episode of Real Time With Bill Maher, the head of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, said that our hunger for meat has caused an explosion in the chicken and cow population, which in turn has increased methane levels (a greenhouse gas).

That is true. Thankfully, 3/4 of my household electricity and a high percentage of the CO2 offsets I buy to offset my driving come from eliminating this very problem. I am not quite vegetarian but I don't eat much meat.

Thought Experiment = Mental Masturbation

Carbon "offsets" are a SCAM. They are the modern-day equivalent of the dark age practice of the church selling indulgences. (Pay us money or your grandma will burn in hell)

<link>

If you buy carbon offsets, you are an idiot and a sucker. You aren't saving the earth, you're lining someone else's pockets. Not that such vital knowledge will stop you from being an idiot and a sucker. Many 16th century German peasants had more sense than you.

Has anyone stopped to think that if ALL life on this planet is carbon based that the idea of carbon offsets makes no sense? Since you can't destroy basic elements, what is here (carbon) has always been here (for the most part)And since every air breathing animal on earth (and yes we are animals) exhales more co2 in a life time that what we are artifitialy pumping out ,does not the idea of limiting the 1 to 4% of co2 we produce (outside of resperation)sound kinda ..oh i don't know incredibly moronic and irrational?PEOPLE YOU NEED TO GET A "GOOD SCIENCE EDUCATION"donot listen to the few chiken littles claiming all sorts of wacky non-proven hypothisis's.The world is not flat the world in not 6000years old and fairies do not excist.Stop believing in fantasy and pull your heads outa your asses and see reality .You are being manipulated for the benifit of the few.