[greghinch]

> I am trying to make the point that precisely because we live in a world that is unfair, defending unfairness when it is obvious will not help improve things.

When, at any point in human history, has the world ever approached anything resembling "fair". The reduction in poverty and increase in quality of life in western countries has all come at the exploitation and subjegation of people in poorer countries. Certainly we've shifted the massive inequality from local to global, but just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Put another way, until we find some infinite, inexpensive source of energy and material resources, no one will live in relative comfort without many more being exploited. That is the way of the world

[e12e]

Wow, I thought I was bitter. I suppose giving up is a valid choice -- but I certainly don't believe infinite expansion is the only model we can carve for ourselves.

[greghinch]

I don't think giving up is the right choice. I just don't think it's a short-term solvable problem. As in, during the lifetime of the people being exploited or us. This is going to take generations to solve. And I feel like the solution is partially already beginning. As we shift more and more menial work to being accomplished through technology, fewer and fewer people will be needed for these jobs. Optimizations through software, robotics, and 3d printing will all but eliminate the need for humans in manufacturing and many other industries.

However, in our current state, we're seeing the repercussions of this type of shift in western countries: vast unemployment. To me this means we just have way too many people alive now. Clearly that isn't a quickly solvable problem (unless you are a genocidal maniac or something...), and so greatly reducing the birthing rates over coming generations (which hasn't really even been approached yet) is the only solution.

A much smaller global population, with largely technologically optimized labor, is the only solution that really would allow most of that population to live comfortable lives in relative luxury.

So you can see how I would view any argument about what needs to be done in the short term as moot, as in my mind it would just be a waste of effort

[maccam94]

> A much smaller global population... is the only solution

If we can overcome resource and energy scarcity, I don't see why we couldn't support an arbitrarily large population comfortably. Unemployment is not a reason to downsize the population, it just means we're outgrowing or current economic system.

[greghinch]

I guess I just don't hold out much hope for that, at least without massive environmental destruction

[dublinben]

I don't think anyone is advocating "giving up" as the responsible reaction to this situation.