Comment on Australia's baby recession deepens, new ABS data says

• hanrahan@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  So you never actually read Malthus ?

  That aside, better with 20 billion ? 100 billion?
  Presumably you have a line where u think " mmmm maybe too many people " So what informs that number for you, assuming some number less than 100 billion ?

  My thoughts are we should let science inform us rather then them random feelings amd also allow other species to exist. But go right ahead, tell is why some random number is best ?

  EO Wilson oponed 250 Million was about all the
  planet could support with a resource intensive lifestyle.

  source

  • Walk_blesseD@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    …with a resource intensive lifestyle.

    Idk bud, maybe that’s what should change instead of imposing arbitrary pop caps 🤦‍♀️ Besides, who tf is this EO Wilson, anyway? Let’s see…

    Oh, here we go…

    Sociobiology: The New Synthesis was initially met with praise by most biologists. After substantial criticism of the book was launched by the Sociobiology Study Group, associated with the organization Science for the People, a major controversy known as the “sociobiology debate” ensued, and Wilson was accused of racism, misogyny, and support for eugenics. Several of Wilson’s colleagues at Harvard, such as Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, both members of the Group, were strongly opposed. Both focused their criticism mostly on Wilson’s sociobiological writings. Gould, Lewontin, and other members, wrote “Against ‘Sociobiology’” in an open letter criticizing Wilson’s “deterministic view of human society and human action”. Other public lectures, reading groups, and press releases were organized criticizing Wilson’s work. In response, Wilson produced a discussion article entitled “Academic Vigilantism and the Political Significance of Sociobiology” in BioScience.

    Lol. Lmao. Please tell me you’re joking

    Wilson said in reference to ants that “Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species”. He asserted that individual ants and other eusocial species were able to reach higher Darwinian fitness putting the needs of the colony above their own needs as individuals because they lack reproductive independence: individual ants cannot reproduce without a queen, so they can only increase their fitness by working to enhance the fitness of the colony as a whole. Humans, however, do possess reproductive independence, and so individual humans enjoy their maximum level of Darwinian fitness by looking after their own survival and having their own offspring.

    Now I’m really curious as to how he came up with 250M number (if you can point me to where he said it). This should be be a laugh.

    source