Every vote you cast for a human being is a vote against the biosphere.

[GliderGuider]

That's a hard thing to say on a political board, but if one adopts a biocentric as opposed to an anthropocentric view, the conclusion seems obvious.

The only wiggle room might come from a political party that advocated a policy of rapid degrowth in both human numbers and activity levels. Unfortunately for the biosphere, even when we acknowledge all their other differences current political parties are united in the view that degrowth is a Bad Thing, to be avoided if humanly possible.

My position is that anything that acts to maintain or increase the current imbalance between humans and the rest of nature is immoral. That includes participating in governance systems that have the maintenance of that imbalance as their implicit goal.

What are your thoughts on this issue?

[Xipe Totec]

1. If you believe that strongly, it is always in your power to reduce human population by one.

[RiverLover]

16. You had the nerve...

to type exactly what I was thinking.

[StevieM]

30. Jury Results. (This is the only alert I have ever sent in 11 years on DU)

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert

On Tue Sep 29, 2015, 11:58 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

If you believe that strongly, it is always in your power to reduce human population by one.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=91640

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

It is not reasonable, in my opinion, to suggest that someone who advocates a reduction in global population should kill themselves.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Sep 30, 2015, 12:04 AM, and voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alerted post mirrors the opinion expressed in the O.P. It's stated in civil language. If the first post is acceptable, then the other is as well...and yes, they are both compliant with the TOS. Irony, thy name is Alerter.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The alerted poster chose to make a rude wisecrack at the start of the thread, but showed he was in no way interested in joining in an intelligent discussion. There were no more post by the alerted poster on the thread.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Since the reply could be interpreted as s misguided attempt at humor, I won't hide. That was really nasty though.

Thank you.

[GliderGuider]

32. Interesting. Thanks for sharing the results.

I don't get bothered by that crack any more. If one has nothing substantive to contribute, but is deeply offended by the idea that the human race is cruisin' for a bruisin' it can't avoid, that's pretty the only response that's left. "LaLaLa I can't hear you, so STFU."

[StevieM]

33. Still, I was surprised that it wasn't hidden. Maybe the night owls on the jury are more flexible

than a daytime jury would have been. I was pretty stunned by the one juror who said "irony, thy name is alerter," like it was ridiculous to even suggest hiding it.

I read your post down thread about reducing family size from generation to generation. Another way to look at is through the lens of the extended family. My brother, sister and I have 5 cousins. We were all really close growing up, and still are today. The eight of us have 10 kids between us. My sister, the youngest of the cousins, just got married a few months ago. She might have one or two kids. So at at most there will be 12 kids from the 8 of us.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. My thought is that it is a moot observation until such time as candidates actually

start running on a ZPG or less than ZPG platform.

[Android3.14]

3. Have to disagree

The underlying fallacy is that there are only two mutually exclusive extremes, biocentric and anthropocentric, on which a person may act.

The truth is that preserving nature, which includes humans, is ultimately essential to an anthropocentric stance.

[GliderGuider]

5. Where in here is the balance, and how are we moving towards it?

The current situation seems very black-and-white to me.

[Android3.14]

14. Let's use real data sources, shall we

A photo bucket image from some unknown person to justify a ludicrous premise (that there is only one of two mutually exclusive paths forward) is hardly an argument.

I know extremism when I see it, and I see it in this OP.

I see nothing useful in responding further.

[caraher]

22. Just FYI...

The "unknown person" in question is the person behind the OP!

[Android3.14]

23. Now I understand. No wonder this doesn't make sense

Thanks for the info.
the Op is an unfortunate, erroneous and obtuse way of viewing the world. Definitely more suited to the right-wing mindset of black-and-white.

[NickB79]

25. GliderGuider did base some of his estimates on real, published research

For example, the work of Vaclav Smil, elegantly summed up in this block diagram:

Not seeing a lot of wildlife biomass in there......

[GliderGuider]

26. The data is from a reputable scientist and freely available sources (>> Updated <<)

Last edited Wed Sep 30, 2015, 10:13 AM - Edit history (2)

All I did was assemble the graph.

The data from 10,000 BCE is from Vaclav Smil's paper Harvesting the Biosphere. The current data is all available on Google, starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_mammals_by_population.

The difference in wild animal biomass between 10,000 BCE and today is explained by the Competitive Exclusion Principle, in which human competitive superiority is amplified by our use of technology and energy.

But I don't think your objections really have anything to do with the source of the data or the ecological principles involved, do they?
============================================
Update:

I went back this morning to re-check the numbers in this graph. The total biomass that I derived from on-line lists of wild land mammalian species was right about 10 MT. However, there are a large number of species that are not well studied, so in order to move that number in the right direction, I multiplied it by 2. So there may be ~20 MT of wild animals.

In comparison there are ~1450 MT of domesticated animals (excluding chickens, since I also excluded wild birds) and about 440 MT of human beings. That means about 99% of today's land animal biomass is composed of humans, our food animals and our pets.

The data for 10,000 BCE is more of a SWAG. I used the total estimate for humans, domestic and wild animals published in Smil's paper for the year 1900. My justification for this is the assumption that this total would have been similar to the carrying capacity of a planet without human technology. That number is about 300 MT, with an uncertainty of perhaps +/- 50%. In comparison, human biomass at the time was vanishingly small: 0.2 MT with a similar uncertainty.

In 12,000 years or so we've gone from humans and their livestock representing less than 0.1% of the land animal biomass to a situation where we represent 99% of a biomass that is over 6 times larger.

If there is a better illustration of the idea that human beings are out of balance with their planet I can't imagine what it could be.

Here's this morning's graphical update:

[cpompilo]

4. But it will take anthropods like us to undo the damage we have inflicted on the earth and move to

sustainability. Else-wise, we need to go extinct which may be your point after all.

[GliderGuider]

7. How can we undo the amount of damage we've done?

It's far beyond the capacity of humans to rectify, especially since it involves species that have already gone extinct, soil fertility that has been trashed, and atmospheric CO2 levels that may take 100,000 years to come back down to pre-industrial levels.

My point isn't really that I want humans to go extinct. I would love it if we cut our numbers and activity levels back to the point where natural processes have a chance to repair some of the damage we've done. Unfortunately, the cut that would be required is far beyond anything that we would undertake voluntarily, whether by voting for it or any other means. I am under no illusions that any action close to what is required will ever be undertaken.

My intention here is more to explore the idea that many of the activities whose "goodness" we take for granted - like voting, having kids, getting raises, taking vacations, contributing to famine relief funds etc. - may not really be all that good if one adopts a slightly wider perspective.

[cpompilo]

15. Certainly the ground truth (pun intended) is humanity's need to significantly reduce our incessant

BREEDING!!! If we don't, as a species, we will go extinct. But the earth will carry on and humanity will become no more than a minor strata layer in the geologic record.

I would add on edit, vote for Bernie.

[Glorfindel]

6. My thoughts: Reward people who choose not to breed as valuable noncontributers to overpopulation

by way of tax breaks and special privileges. Require a license and a hefty fee for reproduction and massively increase taxes on people who choose to breed. This "degrowth" scheme would be much more humane than what is otherwise certain to happen, which is a massive die-off of humanity caused by war, famine, or disease. China's one-child policy is, in my opinion, one of the best things ever to happen to the human race. If it had not been implemented, there would probably be four billion people in China now, starving and killing each other. Thank you for a very interesting question!

[RiverLover]

17. I'm a valuable noncontributor then.

Nice for once! I co-raised a beautiful, smart, & productive step-child. But not having any kids of my own is usually seen as strange in our culture.

[FreakinDJ]

8. This topic gets slammed every time here on DU

Altho it is the only logical answer to so many problems we are facing

Ah .. wait until Global Warming kicks in - Mother Nature will do it for us ...

[GliderGuider]

9. Not surprising. DU is a BAU board

We just want "our people" to be running the business, as usual...

[FreakinDJ]

11. Very regressive

We had population control policies in place during the 70s but Reagan and his Imoral Minority put a stop to them in the 80s

[Kablooie]

10. But if you don't vote, you are essentially letting the people you disagree with win.

By decreasing their opposition.
If you vote you are at least helping the better of two bad choices to win.

And as for population, the US is not the problem. Countries like China and India are the ones that have to change.
Pollution-wise we are a major factor though.

[Boomer]

12. Angels dancing on the head of a pin

Although I agree with your core argument that furthering the imbalance of humans and nature is immoral, the conclusion you draw is not persuasive.

Whether or not I vote or participate in governance, the system will continue. Simple withdrawal from that system will not change the impact of humans on the world's ecosystem, it will -- at most -- simply alter the dynamics affecting humans themselves. Human institutions are all geared to increasing the (short-term) advantage of the species as a whole; some factions may be geared toward unequal distribution of the perceived advantages, others toward wider distribution, but all of them share the same assumption of human primacy.

I vote to improve my individual situation within the system (according to my values and beliefs). Not-voting undermines my individual circumstance, without in substantially improving the fate of the eco-world.

The only way to substantially alter this dynamic is to proactively work against human interests, and ruling human institutions will very quickly shut you down should you attempt that species-betrayal. Again, nothing much accomplished.

[GliderGuider]

13. How much would not voting REALLY undermine your personal situation?

Compared to voting for the wrong person - or even for the right one?

How much does your vote count in the real world? It seems to me that individual voting is more of a philosophical than a utilitarian exercise. That is why I bring my biocentric position to the table when deciding what I should (not) do. Withholding my consent from the system as a whole is far more important to me than any benefit that might accrue from my participation. YMMV.

[Boomer]

27. How much does my vote count?

As one single vote, mine doesn't count for much. Just as one single grain of sand makes no difference to a beach. And yet, if enough single individuals come together on an issue, there is a sea change of difference. Enough grains of sand make a sand dune.

As a gay woman, the choice of Obama made a HUGE difference to my life. After 25 years of living together, my "partner" is now my wife; that would not have happened under a Republican administration. Either way, the climate is still going to hell, but in my short span of years the difference between living with a "friend" and living with a legally recognized spouse is a welcome benefit.

Now tell me how your withdrawal from the system has any positive effect to the larger issue of re-balancing our ecosystem? I would argue that your non-vote, your self-centric withholding of consent, is a meaningless gesture. You are spitting in the wind.

If the gesture pleases you, if it offers some emotional solace in the face of a violently changing ecosystem, indulge yourself by all means. We each take comfort as best we can as we brace ourselves for the approaching storm. But if there is any discernible payoff to your approach, you haven't made it clear.

[GliderGuider]

28. There is no big-picture payoff for a single vote or non-vote.

Last edited Tue Sep 29, 2015, 09:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Neither casting nor withholding one vote makes any difference in the big picture. People normally use voting for other psychological reasons based on our personal values. For people who vote the reason is typically the affirmation of one's in-group or tribal membership, and the party one votes for expresses one's value system. My withhold affirms my identification with the wider community of life rather than a party, a country or even the human species.

Political organizing and GOTV is a slightly different matter. They express a commitment to spreading one's views as they are represented by the party. This commitment requires a belief in the party's values as well as a belief in the value of the system as a whole. Given my social-democratic background my beliefs are closely aligned with those of the Democratic party and especially its left-most wing, and perhaps even more closely aligned with Green Party values. However, I do not believe in the larger system that the institution of politics itself represents. Because of that, I withhold my vote from all parties.

Posts like this create opportunities to ask others if they might feel the same way.

[hunter]

18. Is promoting birth control proactively working against human interests?

Is promoting a very low energy economy proactively working against human interests?

"Economic Productivity" as we currently define it is a direct measure of the damage we are doing to the earth's natural environment and our own human spirit.

What excess comes my way I tend to disperse in subversive "non-productive" ways. It doesn't bother me if the homeless guy I give ten dollars to buys a three pack of tall cans with it.

My own approach to the problem is passive-aggressive. I'm not going to actively sabotage high energy consumer society, but I'm never going to go out and buy a new car either.

It's still possible I could end up homeless someday, but it's not my nature to assault those who do not believe as I do, or destroy high energy industrial infrastructure.

But I do very much want to discard our current economic system in exchange for something better, and more importantly, something sustainable.

The cultural "work ethics," the financial structures, and the fascist political structures that make this unsustainable and destructive economic "growth" possible all need to be discarded.

If we don't shut down this high energy world economy on our own human terms, then mother nature will step in and do the job for us in ways we will not like, coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

[GliderGuider]

19. Regarding "fascist political structures"

From the point of view of most humans, and all non-human organisms, all political structures are fascist.

It hardly needs saying that I agree with you 100%, right down to giving the street person $10...

Anarchists of the world unite! Under my leadership!

[Duppers]

20. Posted earlier

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=213648

[GliderGuider]

21. My parents had three children. I have none.

As does one of my sisters. My other sister had two.

So out of a family of five and our five potential reproductive partners, there are two progeny. From ten down to two, in just two generations. That's what it would take.

[Duppers]

24. My parents also had 3.

My sister and I only 1 each, my brother 0. So we're also down to 2 progeny. Doing our part. And my son and nephew aren't procreating at all.

[pscot]

29. Cruz is a replicant

so it's not like there's no choice. And a vote for Trump is a vote for the end of Western Civ. We have lots of options.

[GliderGuider]

31. Very good points!