The Parable Of The Tribes

[The2ndWheel]

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC07/Schmoklr.htm

An expanded version...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_andrew_b_060731_the_parable_of_the_t.htm

I think this reading material fits well with the post about paradigms, and some of the questions that came up in the thread for it.

[Terry in Austin]

1. Interesting corollary

I need to go back and read the article in more detail, but it's interesting to consider how industrial expansionism may have interacted with a longer history of political expansionism.

Both seem to be vulnerable to the "yeast problem" -- the entity, be it a society or an economy, eventually becomes a victim of its own success. In the case of Rome, for example, its main "industry," arguably, was military conquest and expansion. Augustus recognized early on that it was not sustainable, and took steps to contain it, but from there the Empire slid slowly and steadily down from its peak.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. I'm distracted by some faulty assumptions

For example:

1. http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC07/Schmoklr.htm

   "The great monuments of the ancient world were built with the sweat of slaves whose civilized ancestors had not known the oppressor's whip. After four thousand years the pyramids of Egypt can still stand as an emblem of the problem of civilization, that its achievements are more reliably impressive than benign."

   
   http://guardians.net/hawass/buildtomb.htm

   …
   The pyramid builders were not slaves but peasants conscripted on a rotating part-time basis, working under the supervision of skilled artisans and craftsmen who not only built the pyramid complexes for the kings and nobility, but also designed and constructed their own, more modest tombs.
   …



2. http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC07/Schmoklr.htm

   … Because human beings (like other living creatures) have "excess reproductive capacity," meaning that human numbers tend to increase indefinitely unless a high proportion of the population dies prematurely, …

   
   http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/UNPD_policybriefs/UNPD_policy_brief1.pdf
   

   … While fertility has declined throughout the developing world since the 1970s, most of the least developed countries still have total fertility levels above 5 children per woman. …

   (In countries most able to support a growing population, people have fewer children.)

The paper is (of course) limited by the author's own "paradigm paralysis." (Civilization = bad.)

[The2ndWheel]

4. Yeah, that's the wall we can't help but hitting

We're all limited by our own ways of thinking. Or, at least, that's one way of thinking about it.

"(In countries most able to support a growing population, people have fewer children.)"

But the total amount of humans is still growing. When we get to the point that the total is in actual decline, we'll have an entire new set of problems, as we've never had to deal with holding together a global civilization with a contracting, aging population. Or, at least, that's one way of thinking about it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. "But the total amount of humans is still growing."

FWIW: The UN expects the population to level off at about nine billion people, but that's not really the point.


This author labors under the assumption that people "breed like rabbits" and that we'll have just as many children as we can, but clearly that is not the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate


There are various explanations for why "developed" nations have lower fertility rates, most importantly (I feel) parents in "developed" nations expect their children to grow to adulthood. They don't feel compelled to have a large family, "just in case."

Another (frankly) is that women in "developed" nations have better access to artificial birth control. Even though they could have a large family, they choose not to.

[The2ndWheel]

6. Absolutely

"parents in "developed" nations expect their children to grow to adulthood"

Parents in developed nations also have access to the children of a growing number of other parents. If there are fewer children being born, populations of developed countries actually go down, and we don't use immigration to keep the numbers up, what might happen?

"The UN expects the population to level off at about nine billion people, but that's not really the point."

That's exactly the point. What difference does it make if developed countries have cut population growth if the total amount of people continues to grow? It's done by increasing consumption, whatever it may be, education, birth control, etc.

We've got 4 options:

1)More people, more consumption
2)More people, less consumption
3)Less people, more consumption
4)Less people, less consumption

#1 is what we're doing right now, and have been doing for thousands of years. We're going to add more people before we ever start to actually level off, and that's going to require more consumption, since we live in a totalizing world system, and it's the only fair thing to do. So #2 is basically an in-between phase(the developing nations), since if you have more people, you're going to have more consumption. #3 is also an in=between phase(the developed nations), but we keep importing people to keep the numbers growing, and our system of social programs viable(more people paying into the system, decreasing the financial burden for each citizen). #4 is something that no nation would strive for, since all of our institutions would crumble if we had fewer people as part of them, and they were all consuming less. Jobs disappear, taxes dry up, etc.

We're going to continue doing #1, no matter what, until the population physically levels off(not just on a spreadsheet). Once that happens, we'll be on our way to #4(although not the next day obviously), and we'll just have different problems to deal with. If our solution to our current economic problems is any indication, we'll have to grow our way out of it. Print money, make babies. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. No, you miss my point

I'm well aware of the problems associated with overpopulation.

My point is that the assumption that humans reproduce to the extent they are able is false. (Humans in "developed" nations are able to have many more children, but choose not to.)

This is a fundamental flaw in the understanding of human nature.

[The2ndWheel]

8. I hear you

Early humans were able to have more children too, but they didn't need them. Until at least one tribe had more and found a way to keep them alive.

My point is that modern society does need more people. It's not so much that we're choosing to have fewer children(though we are), it's that we don't need more of our own children for the system to work, we just need more people in it, regardless of where they're from.

The developed world can choose to have fewer children, but the developed world is still adding people to their societies.

[ashling]

3. I am struck by some of the same

faulty assumptions expressed by Is it just Me in an earlier post, but haven't had a chance to really focus on the whole thing. (My reading has relly been slowed down due to optic nerve problems) However, I am really interested and look forward to reading this material.

I was imediately struck by the similarity (the title at least ) with Melvin B. Tolson's poem The Idols of the Tribe