WEF Declares 'We Just Don’t Need The Vast Majority of You' [07:36]

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (38).

[–] • 0 pt

We're not "evolved" for a lot of things, but we have highly adaptable brains and we can do a lot better than chase buffalo now.
Deforestation, as well as every other tragedy of the commons, is only a problem in places that don't respect property rights, i.e., places that have strong governments.
We'll find a way to produce more phosphorus or, as the price of phosphorus rises, some other compound that can substitute. This is a basic principle of economics.
Overfishing is another tragedy of the commons problem solved easily by strong respect for property rights, regardless of population size.
Pollution is also tragedy of the commons.
"Impact" is a nebulous term. 99% of all species that have ever lived, are extinct.
"Dygenics" is pseudo-science. We've never had any "eugenic" practices and people aren't all walking around retarded. Using the senses you were born with disproves this nonsense.
Standard of living improves because of what I told another commenter - we need more people as our base of knowledge grows. I'm not going to re-write it here, just go find my other comment.

I think there is a distinct lack of basic economic knowledge on this site and that is incredibly depressing.

It's not a knee-jerk reaction at all. It's ... really simple economics that anyone with the internet should be able to figure out.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

-Sure we have impressive neuroplasticity, but it has limits. Following that line of reasoning without restriction leads to the insane and reckless worldview of the 'progressives' we rightly deride, wherein any maladaptive behaviour is fair game. -All your tragedy of the commons stuff is a massive cop-out. Do you really expect property rights (especially for non-elites) and even property ownership in general to increase with larger populations? At some point you have to recognize that hypothetical ideals typically lose out to messy realities. And even if some enlightened mode of civilization was the solution, it would be reckless to support unchecked population growth when you have still no idea when/if it that state can be achieved. -We need a lot of phosphorus to produce fertilizer. Some alternate method of mining or reclamation will not keep up with demand due to the dispersal involved—that's just the physics of it. Not saying this will be a problem soon, but it would be prudent to give ourselves the most amount of time to technologically advance and to not have a huge population when it does become a problem. Futhermore there is no compound that can substitute (it's an essential element), and your response belies a very poor understanding of the basic dependencies of life.
-Human activities have caused an atypical frequency of species extinction, is the point -Dysgenics are documented. We certainly have had eugenic practices before (death penalty, sterilizations, arranged marriage etc.), and insinuating that gross retardation is the only form of maladaption is entirely disingenuous. Using the brain I was born with tells me that many people are able to proliferate today who wouldn't have survived before modern medicine and welfare.
-Your other comment is garbage too and I've addressed it.

I think there is a distinct proliferation of lolbertarian idealism on this site and that is incredibly depressing.

Your half-knowledge is woeful to behold. If you're such a proponent of autodidactism, then do some more of it and develop a more realistic understanding of our world.

-Sure we have impressive neuroplasticity, but it has limits. Following that line of reasoning without restriction leads to the insane and reckless worldview of the 'progressives' we rightly deride, wherein any maladaptive behaviour is fair game. -All your tragedy of the commons stuff is a massive cop-out. Do you really expect property rights (especially for non-elites) and even property ownership in general to *increase* with larger populations? At some point you have to recognize that hypothetical ideals typically lose out to messy realities. And even if some enlightened mode of civilization was the solution, it would be reckless to support unchecked population growth when you have still no idea when/if it that state can be achieved. -We need a lot of phosphorus to produce fertilizer. Some alternate method of mining or reclamation will not keep up with demand due to the dispersal involved—that's just the physics of it. Not saying this will be a problem soon, but it would be prudent to give ourselves the most amount of time to technologically advance and to not have a huge population when it does become a problem. Futhermore there is no compound that can substitute (it's an essential element), and your response belies a very poor understanding of the basic dependencies of life. -Human activities have caused an atypical frequency of species extinction, is the point -Dysgenics are documented. We certainly have had eugenic practices before (death penalty, sterilizations, arranged marriage etc.), and insinuating that gross retardation is the only form of maladaption is entirely disingenuous. Using the brain I was born with tells me that many people are able to proliferate today who wouldn't have survived before modern medicine and welfare. -Your other comment is garbage too and I've addressed it. I think there is a distinct proliferation of lolbertarian idealism on this site and that is incredibly depressing. Your half-knowledge is woeful to behold. If you're such a proponent of autodidactism, then do some more of it and develop a more realistic understanding of our world.

parent
link