I'm not a malthusian so I don't agree with population reduction as a matter of policy. The way I interpreted her fears was that the nightmare of transhumanism and the bio-security state could spell our doom if we don't settle our differences and start strengthening the bonds between men and women, creating strong families and reproducing in greater numbers.
The theory states that food production will not be able to keep up with growth in the human population
While that's probably true, it would also be self-correcting.
My objection to excessive numbers of people is because of what I've seen it do to our landscapes, and because of how overcrowding drives humans insane. Think it's bad now, just wait until 10 billion. Plus, there's not a single problem facing humanity that wouldn't be totally solved by a correctly sized population for the territory.
This is just a problematic way for you to be thinking because it's not rooted in freedom.
If we take your statements as a given, then who decides what the proper sized population is? Who decides what people have to die or be relocated? This is authoritarian thinking of top-down control, like Communist China. Maybe you solve some of the problems, but you're bound to create all kinds of new problems with these ideas.
'Who decides' is a problem because of how unintelligent our species is. Someone would have to impose functionality on us. It's not innate, and as you say, would require top-down control.
That alone is another reason to limit our numbers. But there's no solution from within, and we're determined to go right to total self-destruction. Survivors will be able to pick through our bones for metals and other resources, and hopefully that won't be productive enough to spiral out of control again.
What kind of problems do you foresee with humanity living in small towns and villages, producing most of their own food locally, and generally living in harmony with the environment?
I'm not a malthusian so I don't agree with population reduction as a matter of policy. The way I interpreted her fears was that the nightmare of transhumanism and the bio-security state could spell our doom if we don't settle our differences and start strengthening the bonds between men and women, creating strong families and reproducing in greater numbers.
While that's probably true, it would also be self-correcting.
My objection to excessive numbers of people is because of what I've seen it do to our landscapes, and because of how overcrowding drives humans insane. Think it's bad now, just wait until 10 billion. Plus, there's not a single problem facing humanity that wouldn't be totally solved by a correctly sized population for the territory.
This is just a problematic way for you to be thinking because it's not rooted in freedom.
If we take your statements as a given, then who decides what the proper sized population is? Who decides what people have to die or be relocated? This is authoritarian thinking of top-down control, like Communist China. Maybe you solve some of the problems, but you're bound to create all kinds of new problems with these ideas.
'Who decides' is a problem because of how unintelligent our species is. Someone would have to impose functionality on us. It's not innate, and as you say, would require top-down control.
That alone is another reason to limit our numbers. But there's no solution from within, and we're determined to go right to total self-destruction. Survivors will be able to pick through our bones for metals and other resources, and hopefully that won't be productive enough to spiral out of control again.
What kind of problems do you foresee with humanity living in small towns and villages, producing most of their own food locally, and generally living in harmony with the environment?