India's population expected to pass China's by 2030

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Azazel


It's simple multiplication: Even if we use the binary system, where unhappy people equal zero, and happy people equal 1, there is much more utility in a group of 500 people with 50% of them happy, than in a group of 200 people with 100% of them happy.

And this gets a whole lot more complex.

So it can be utilitarian to make a proportionately larger number of people unhappy? I thought the idea was to sacrifice the few for the greater whole, not sacrifice the greater whole for the few.

To use your example above; You have society of 200 happy people. As they reproduce, their population reaches 300, but only half of them are happy now. That means the addition of the three hunred new people into their society resulted in 50 more happy people than there was before, and 250 more unhappy people.


That seems to go against everything utilitarianism stands for, from what I understand of it. Is a society where everyone is happy not preferable to a society where only half the people are happy?

[Az]

50% of 500 is 250. 100% of 200 is 200. 250>250. QED.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Azazel


50% of 500 is 250. 100% of 200 is 200. 250>250. QED.

Did you read my post? Respond to what i said, don't just stick your fingers in your ears.

When going from 200 happy people to 250 happy people and 250 unhappy people, you are making a substantially larger number of people unhappy than you are making happy.


And 250 is not greater than 250.


Edit: I see, you meant to say 250 > 200, of course.


But to that I respond; 50% of 500 is 250. 0% of 200 is 200. 250> 0. QED.

A much more substantial difference, i think.

[Az]

ahh, well, I see the problem now. You count unhappy people as -1, while I count them as 0.

But neither are true. The cases of lives really not worth living are very rare.

[Sandman]

A question for the low population folk: Do you accept that your desires will result in the extinction of probably 90% of the world's national and ethnic groups? Or will your plans fall disproportionately on large groups like Han Chinese?

It's just that the posters advocating a lower human population strike me as the sort of people who will also advocate protecting minority cultures. But such cultures would be put most at risk by a large population decline.

[Az]

Sandman: No. The plans call for it to fall on white people.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Sandman
A question for the low population folk: Do you accept that your desires will result in the extinction of probably 90% of the world's national and ethnic groups? Or will your plans fall disproportionately on large groups like Han Chinese?

It's just that the posters advocating a lower human population strike me as the sort of people who will also advocate protecting minority cultures. But such cultures would be put most at risk by a large population decline.

That is an interesting argument. National and ethnic groups wouldn't matter to me - we'll all be one in the end, one way or another. But the cultural aspect is interesting to me.

I suppose, that if population is to decline, it will take a conentrated effort by each individual community and region to reduce it's population and maintain it at a particular level, in that sense, there wouldn't be any extinction of culture or ethnicity, except perhaps in very urbanized regions that are home to numerous cultures. But even then, it's not likely to be a complete extinction because the cultures that inhabit it have homes elsewhere.

[Dr Strangelove]

Ss the mean age of China's population ages they will at first enjoy a higher per capita standard of living, then eventually there may be a labor shortage as the population becomes top heavy with the elderly. The obvious solution is that China might be forced to allow immigration of cheap labor. Where will that labor come from? Why India of course! Once the Indian population reaches a certain proportion they will demand civil liberties, et voila, China will become a modern diverse democracy.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Once the Indian population reaches a certain proportion they will demand civil liberties, et voila, China will become a modern diverse democracy.

Wait - civil liberties within India or China?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by General Ludd



Wait - civil liberties within India or China?

AFAIK India has one of the best civil liberties records in the world outside of Western Europe and North America, and may in fact have a better record than many of the so-called "developed" countries.

[KrazyHorse]

The trap you're falling into is thinking that the amount of resources is finite. In our era, this is decidedly not the case.

The amount of any resource in our universe is finite. Don't use words if you don't mean them.

[KrazyHorse]

Hmm. Let's test DanS' assumption that our population can continue to expand ad infinitum.

If the world population grew at the US' current natural population growth rate of ~0.6% and assuming an average human mass of 60 kg, in 16 000 years the total mass of human beings would be 1.33*10^53 kg, larger than the mass of the Universe....

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
AFAIK India has one of the best civil liberties records in the world outside of Western Europe and North America, and may in fact have a better record than many of the so-called "developed" countries.

I strongly doubt that, with the existence of a huge underclass called "the Untouchables."

[KrazyHorse]

It'll only take ~5100 years to match the mass of the Earth and ~7300 to match the whole solar system.

[KrazyHorse]

Meanwhile there are softer limits like the total amount of energy reaching the Earth versus basic caloric needs of the population (2100 years)...