[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', ' ')Is it so difficult for you to see? Maybe this is a cultural bias ... in my profession people who make such gross errors (I'm referring to his calculation of carrying capacity) lose legitimacy. Why do you evade the question i.e.whether the gross numerical errors of the "Gods" Erlich/Stanton erode their credibility?
In any case ... If other people think I'm wrong ... so be it. The important question is why don't you proceed with your die-off scenario?
How does my assessment of Stanton interferes with the discussion in this thread?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', ' ')But to put things in perspective , permit me to make one point: you have no case to make, because you do not know what the carrying capacity is. You based your initial assessment (1 out 3 scenaria) on an energy calculation quoted from a summary of an article which was based on another article where the number appeared out of thin air. You obviously have not read the other articles so what is occuring here is just a mental masturbation. So Monte ... unless you provide us with the primary data that appeared in your original post, we only have to go with your hunch that we are in overshoot.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', ' ')Was mixing the threads
What was the point of the Stanton reference to begin with? (I forgot but no need to remind me).

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', ' ') But to put things in perspective , permit me to make one point: you have no case to make, because you do not know what the carrying capacity is. You based your initial assessment (1 out 3 scenaria) on an energy calculation quoted from a summary of an article which was based on another article where the number appeared out of thin air. You obviously have not read the other articles so what is occuring here is just a mental masturbation. So Monte ... unless you provide us with the primary data that appeared in your original post, we only have to go with your hunch that we are in overshoot.

[MonteQuest]

I now yield the thread back to euthanasia. Sorry for the temp hijack to the die-off thread.

PS

ES and I kissed and made up.

[MonteQuest]

What? There are no men strong enough to face reality? We can sit back and pontificate about the sanctity of life from a high ground of world inequity, but we are cowards to face the reality of life and death when it is in our face?

In the words of Aaron...pfft!

No one has the balls to step up and say they would cut the rope? You know what happens if you don't? You all fall to your death.

Better keep your knife sharp, you are going to need it in the future.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'I') now yield the thread back to euthanasia. Sorry for the temp hijack to the die-off thread.

PS

ES and I kissed and made up.

[rogerhb]

On the left we have

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"

On the right we have

"You can eat if you can pay for it"

So both of these say that if you are healthy and don't work/have no money you don't eat.

In a capitlist system if you are an invalid and rich you get to eat. But with Marxism, its more tricky, does this mean if a person is 100% useless they should be fed or not?

[gg3]

Good to see y'all kissing & making up; maybe there's hope for our species after all:-)

Re. "cut the rope" scenario: it's always possible to contrive cases that force people to behave in a pre-ordained manner, and contrived cases that force people to behave in an amoral manner are a subset of those. The Nazis were really good at that, and they stripped 'em down to the bare essentials: "Choose who lives: your wife or your daughter?" These cases in general prove nothing.

===


Meanwhile, y'all missed my arguement entirely, and I'll be so bold as to say that it refutes Stanton altogether.

Assume sustainable population of 2 billion, plus tolerance for time-limited overshoot.


1) Stanton's arguement reduces to the following:

a) We are in overshoot.

b) We will therefore collapse in a mass die-off.

c) The mass die-off will entail unimaginable horror.

d) The degree and kinds of unimaginable horror can be reduced through a policy of mass involuntary euthanasia until a sustainable population remains.

e) Therefore if we do not otherwise pull back from overshoot voluntarily, we should undertake the policy of mass involuntary euthanasia, directed against those who are "deemed" to be "unfit." (He starts with disabled infants and elderly persons.)

f) Point (e) can be read as either a warning or as a proposal. But given the context of Stanton's language (denigration of human rights; promotion of heartlessness as a virtue), and his absence of contending scenarios (i.e. "if we want to avoid *that*, we need to do *this* instead"), it is not unreasonable to suggest he is in favor of it.


2) My refutation of Stanton is as follows:

a) In order to succeed at bringing population into balance with carrying capacity, mass involuntary euthanasia ("kill-off") must bring the population down to the same level as would be achieved by a natural die-off.

b) Both kill-off and die-off involve the involuntary termination of individual lives on a massive scale: the former by deliberate and willful acts on the part of a society's leaders, the latter by random or psuedo-random acts on the part of natural forces. The end-result of kill-off is therefore equivalent to that of "die-off by other means."

c) Die-off is the result of a cumulative history of relentless overshoot and failure to take steps to avert collapse (i.e. "collapse" is identical with "result of failure to avert collapse"). This degree of failure demonstrates that a society is unfit for survival in a given ecological context.

d) In a human society, die-off more specifically demonstrates the failure of that society's leadership to avert collapse.

e) Failing to avert collapse proves that the society's leadership is unfit to lead, and in particular is unfit to manage population/resource issues. By analogy, a management team that allows a company to spend itself into bankruptcy has demonstrated unfitness to manage, and in particular its unfitness to manage budgets.

f) Those who promote kill-off, are effectively consigning their societies to "die-off by other means." This is equivalent to supporting a natural die-off by default, and as such, is equivalent to the existing historic failure to manage. Thus it demonstrates that they are unfit to make decisions relevant to population and resource issues, which in turn invalidates their proposed final solution.

g) To support kill-off is to demonstrate one's own unfitness to lead.


3) Though if we want to play devil's advocate: In terms of consumption per capita, the United States is far and away the most profligate and wasteful, with each of us consuming the equivalent of 2 people in Europe or 20 people in India. If Stanton is serious, the logical extension of his proposal would be for the rest of the world to wage war against the United States by all means available, to reduce our population to 1/20 of what it is at present, thereby enabling the rest of the world to survive for far longer on the remaining resources.

Three... two... one.... Bombs away!

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'M')eanwhile, y'all missed my arguement entirely, and I'll be so bold as to say that it refutes Stanton altogether.