Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
2000 years in the future, (whatever species replaces) humans will look back on the 20th/21st century humans as ignorant for not doing more about human overpopulation without which, we would enjoy clean air, water, etc. But nope, capitalism and churches combined to spread the word that more babies = growth.
Check this out for a change http://www.vhemt.org
In a socialist (or other) system, we would still have to produce far more energy for the people coming up than we could conserve amongst the currently fortunate.
The fundamental problem is not capitalism, capitalism is a (crappy, divisive, inegalitarian) means of managing the problem.
The fundamental problem is that there is a maximum sustainable level of global resource consumption, no matter what system you use to distribute those resources.
Given that sustainable resource ceiling, there is an inverse relationship between the number of people we can have on the Earth, and the total level of security and/or comfort they will experience over the course of their lives (including length of lifespan-- so longer lives would mean fewer people and/or lower standards of living). This is true even if you distribute resources on a strictly egalitarian basis, with every person using up exactly the same level of sustainable resource.
That is the fundamental problem.
You can try to harness or constrain capitalism in ways designed to improve the management of the fundamental problem. This capitalsim-in-a-cage may or may not produce outcomes better than 'euthanize capitalism entirely, and replace it with a command economy, or with nothing, or with mumble-mumble-don't-worry-we'll-come-up-with-something-after-the-revolution.
There are many ways to reduce population; some of them nicer than others, and some are, um, quite a bit faster.
I am confident that 2000 years from now humans (who will still be very, very recognizably human) will exist in numbers which can be supported by the resources available. And I'm pretty sure those numbers will be lower than today, due to the exhaustion of "fossil" resources. How they get there from here, though, I don't care to guess.