Anything giving you fresh inspriation at the moment?

N

nomadologist

Guest
Nomad, I don't think there's a big risk of humanity facing extinction any time soon. Widespread war, deprivation and so on, possibly (if you listen carefully, you can hear gek-opel cackling with glee...), but not extinction. So from an evolutionary point of view only, whereby more individuals = more successful, humans are and will continue to be very successful. Maybe a bit less successful in the near future if we don't get our collective act together, I don't know.

You claimed that I claimed the earth is not overpopulated (by humans), and as you can see I did not say that.

Well, if you think our population number is a sign of our "success", then how can you also think we're overpopulated? That doesn't make much sense to me. Overpopulation by definition is a "problem".

I think it's perfectly plausible that humans become extinct in the next ten thousand years or so, if the people who claim we are in the midst of a global climate crisis are correct.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
There's only a paradox in what I've said if you ignore all the qualifications and lemmas I've been putting in about humans being successful FROM AN EVOLUTIONARY POINT OF VIEW. If instead of that you want to use a more human definition of success, then I'd say we'll be more successful when we've either reduced our population or learned to manage our resources better so that people can enjoy a better quality of life in a sustained and stable way. That's it. There is nothing in what I've said to suggest that my position is "overpopulation is nothing to worry about (or even actively a good thing)", indeed I've repeatedly made it clear that I think the exact opposite.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Nice way out of that one, Mr. Tea, yeah! By positing some sort of "difference" between success on "human terms" (? I was talking about success on evolutionary terms as well) and "evolutionary terms". Riiiight.

Overpopulation is NOT a mark of "evolutionary success." In fact, it is QUITE THE OPPOSITE.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Out of what 'one'? I wasn't in 'one' in the first place. Everything I've said has been consistent.
For a start, there is no such thing as 'overpopulation' from an evolutionary point of view: organisms that are successful reproduce and spread, and the ones that are most successful of all reproduce and spread the fastest. That's all I mean by 'success', in this sense, so by this criterion the very idea of overpopulation is an oxymoron. It's like saying a capitalist has got it wrong because he's making too much money.

The only way 'overpopulation' makes sense, again in this purely evolutionarily-defined way, is if short-term population growth comes at the expense of a crash that leads to the extinction of the species, and while times ahead are definitely going to be tough, I can't see our extinction on the immediate horizon.

This is what I've been getting at all along. There is no contradiction, no logical corner I've had to 'worm my way out of', except in your (inaccurate) interpretation of what I've said.
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
I’m getting inspired by reading Gore Vidal’s Homage to Daniel Shays: Collected Essays 1952–1972. He is truly one of the most keen-sighted and witty writers the world has ever seen. Like this typically brilliant opening passage from his essay on Howard Hughes:

Is Howard Hughes the most boring American? Admittedly, the field is large; over two hundred million of us are in competition. Yet on the strength of an old associate’s recent memorial, I am inclined to give Hughes the benefit of the belief I have long held that the more money an American accumulates the less interesting he himself becomes. Certainly there is not much you can do with the fact of someone else’s fortune except stare at all those naughts upon the page. Then, naughts aside, Hughes the actual man emanates a chloroform quite his own: the high droning voice, the catatonic manner, the absence of all humor (a characteristic of the very rich American, but here quintessential), the lack of interest in the human, the preoccupation with machinery (yet he is “a lousy engineer,” according to my father, a long-time aviator acquaintance, and “a menace as a flier”), the collecting of beautiful and famous women to no vivid end (although feisty Ava Gardner did knock him out with an ashtray), and, of course, the grim eating habits (dinner is always a steak with peas, followed by vanilla ice cream and cookies).

The best thing about Hughes has been his withdrawal from the world—for this, if nothing else, he ought not only to have been honored but encouraged by a grateful nation. [...]
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
For a start, there is no such thing as 'overpopulation' from an evolutionary point of view: organisms that are successful reproduce and spread, and the ones that are most successful of all reproduce and spread the fastest. That's all I mean by 'success', in this sense, so by this criterion the very idea of overpopulation is an oxymoron. It's like saying a capitalist has got it wrong because he's making too much money.

This is not true. Overpopulation often produces a strain on natural resources which leads to starvation and a pretty overwhelming and distinct failure to survive and thrive. This is not the definition of success from an evolutionary standpoint.

The "most successful" reproduce the healthiest, longest living, and accumulate the most resources.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Well obviously an organism that experiences short-term success at the expense of long-term success, i.e. a population boom followed by extinction, isn't 'successful' for very long. But how much 'resources' a species uses is neither here nor there: a species that needs lots of resources is much more vulnerable to overpopulation or environmental changes than one that doesn't need so much, for example.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
in the end it's a "chicken and the egg" argument, I think, with biologists coming down on both sides. but more and more are questioning the idea that indiscriminately spreading your seed is an evolutionary strong suit
 

swears

preppy-kei
Yeah, but who gets to decide who's "stupid" or not?

Most people are dumb because of nuture rather than nature anyway.
 

swears

preppy-kei
Really "smart".

176996-57573.jpg
 
Top