Well, as I understand the SPM voting process, veto approval is line-by-line, so in that sense, each sentence is approved by some representative from each country. I don’t think there’s one country that can veto while others cannot,and commentary I’ve seen on the process is vague, but seems to claim it’s a simple democracy. Let me know if you learn more.
As far as exploring the details of US immigration, grain exports, and birth rate distribution, I generally favor shifting costs for the global crisis onto developed countries, where resource consumption is higher and historical responsibility for the crisis rests. Therefore, paying for the reparations that the Global South wants (some $700 billion, I read someplace) is a good idea.
Reducing birth rates in all countries is appropriate, and typical measures are such things as:
free health services.
free birth control (edit: I mean contraception).
free health education.
support of education and economic rights for women.
I think the focus of family planning belongs on developed countries where resource consumption is higher. The concern is number of births, not global immigration flows.
If I were a longtermist, I would favor a generation-on-generation use of family planning to discourage population growth, leading, within some few hundred years, to a small Earth population, that can then remain stable for many millennia. My idea of small is a few million people. That further allows human beings to stay within an ecological niche rather than destroy the resources that they need for long-term survival on planet Earth. Obviously, I am less concerned with technological stagnation than some.
EDIT: I should make clear that:
family planning has plenty of critics. I don’t have much sympathy for their views, but since family planning is a controversial topic, I expect that critics of the idea will prevent proactive family planning in some developed countries.
my view of an ethical longtermist goal is not popular among self-identified EA longtermists. I believe that they expect a larger population overall in several hundred or thousand years from now to be both feasible and desirable. I do not.
family planning is a voluntary opportunity for young couples. Family planning allows couples to choose the number of children that they will have, and in particular puts power over reproduction into the hands of women who can then choose whether to conceive.
family planning services also give individuals the means to choose self-sterilization if they desire. For example, I had a vasectomy done a long time ago, as I did not expect to ever have children.
I am not settled on a few million as a final number for a long-term population of the planet. The final number would depend on how large a population is needed to:
support what level of technology satisfactorily.
allow specialization of skills sufficient to provide high-quality services to the public such as engineering, teaching, accounting, etc.
maintain genetic diversity in the population over millennia, given that not all people will choose to have children at all.
maintain the population given the lifespan that people in the society choose.
You had mentioned concern about there being no statements of existential threat from climate change. Here’s the UN Secretary General’s speech on climate change where he claims that climate change is an existential threat.
I don’t believe the UN Secretary General shares my views on population or renewables.
Why only a few million? You’ll have to kill 9 billion people, and to what purpose? I don’t see any reason to think that the current population of humans wouldn’t be infinitely sustainable. We can supply all the energy we need with nuclear and/or solar power, and that will get us all the fresh water we need; and we already have all the arable land that we need. There just isn’t anything else we need.
Re. “You had mentioned concern about there being no statements of existential threat from climate change. Here’s the UN Secretary General’s speech on climate change where he claims that climate change is an existential threat.”
No; I said that when I traced claims of existential threat from climate change back to their source, the trail always led back to the IPCC, and the latest IPCC summary report didn’t mention anything remotely close to an existential threat to humans. This is yet another instance—the only source cited is the IPCC.
I was writing about family planning, Phil, not killing people. if you want to communicate with me, you’ll have to read what I write with more care. I was writing about family planning, and there am concerned about reducing conception, primarily, as opposed to providing, for example, abortion services. If you understand what family planning is, you’ll recognize that it is not genocide.
Well, as I understand the SPM voting process, veto approval is line-by-line, so in that sense, each sentence is approved by some representative from each country. I don’t think there’s one country that can veto while others cannot,and commentary I’ve seen on the process is vague, but seems to claim it’s a simple democracy. Let me know if you learn more.
As far as exploring the details of US immigration, grain exports, and birth rate distribution, I generally favor shifting costs for the global crisis onto developed countries, where resource consumption is higher and historical responsibility for the crisis rests. Therefore, paying for the reparations that the Global South wants (some $700 billion, I read someplace) is a good idea.
Reducing birth rates in all countries is appropriate, and typical measures are such things as:
free health services.
free birth control (edit: I mean contraception).
free health education.
support of education and economic rights for women.
I think the focus of family planning belongs on developed countries where resource consumption is higher. The concern is number of births, not global immigration flows.
If I were a longtermist, I would favor a generation-on-generation use of family planning to discourage population growth, leading, within some few hundred years, to a small Earth population, that can then remain stable for many millennia. My idea of small is a few million people. That further allows human beings to stay within an ecological niche rather than destroy the resources that they need for long-term survival on planet Earth. Obviously, I am less concerned with technological stagnation than some. EDIT: I should make clear that:
family planning has plenty of critics. I don’t have much sympathy for their views, but since family planning is a controversial topic, I expect that critics of the idea will prevent proactive family planning in some developed countries.
my view of an ethical longtermist goal is not popular among self-identified EA longtermists. I believe that they expect a larger population overall in several hundred or thousand years from now to be both feasible and desirable. I do not.
family planning is a voluntary opportunity for young couples. Family planning allows couples to choose the number of children that they will have, and in particular puts power over reproduction into the hands of women who can then choose whether to conceive.
family planning services also give individuals the means to choose self-sterilization if they desire. For example, I had a vasectomy done a long time ago, as I did not expect to ever have children.
I am not settled on a few million as a final number for a long-term population of the planet. The final number would depend on how large a population is needed to:
support what level of technology satisfactorily.
allow specialization of skills sufficient to provide high-quality services to the public such as engineering, teaching, accounting, etc.
maintain genetic diversity in the population over millennia, given that not all people will choose to have children at all.
maintain the population given the lifespan that people in the society choose.
You had mentioned concern about there being no statements of existential threat from climate change. Here’s the UN Secretary General’s speech on climate change where he claims that climate change is an existential threat.
I don’t believe the UN Secretary General shares my views on population or renewables.
Why only a few million? You’ll have to kill 9 billion people, and to what purpose? I don’t see any reason to think that the current population of humans wouldn’t be infinitely sustainable. We can supply all the energy we need with nuclear and/or solar power, and that will get us all the fresh water we need; and we already have all the arable land that we need. There just isn’t anything else we need.
Re. “You had mentioned concern about there being no statements of existential threat from climate change. Here’s the UN Secretary General’s speech on climate change where he claims that climate change is an existential threat.”
No; I said that when I traced claims of existential threat from climate change back to their source, the trail always led back to the IPCC, and the latest IPCC summary report didn’t mention anything remotely close to an existential threat to humans. This is yet another instance—the only source cited is the IPCC.
I was writing about family planning, Phil, not killing people. if you want to communicate with me, you’ll have to read what I write with more care. I was writing about family planning, and there am concerned about reducing conception, primarily, as opposed to providing, for example, abortion services. If you understand what family planning is, you’ll recognize that it is not genocide.