To all full-grown hexbears, NO DUNKING IN MY THREAD...ONLY TEACH, criminal scum who violate my Soviet will be banned three days and called a doo doo head...you have been warned
To all full-grown hexbears, NO DUNKING IN MY THREAD...ONLY TEACH, criminal scum who violate my Soviet will be banned three days and called a doo doo head...you have been warned
I'm not an anarchist, but the problem of "more slaves in the world" today is due to the world having more people overall. So the question has nothing to do with slavery, but rather "why did the world population expand"
And the answer is that new resources (coal and oil) allowed it to
Such population expansion is a major threat against any future global communist system, and eventually any real communist government would have to implement a 2-child policy. (which would be flexible--like greater privileges for 1-child havers, and less for 3-child havers, also more of this cost would fall on the men because women inherently suffer more in the act of reproduction) Ideally you could find what level of "privileges" and "penalty" could naturally keep the human fertility rate at 2.0 through trial and error, so that you wouldn't really have to force anyone to modify their reproductive choices
I also think stuff like confiscating property during the transitional phase can be substituted to some extent with heightening inheritance taxes so that people don't "notice" their standard of living becoming less disgustingly opulent. Although some level of hyperrich could be able to have their stuff just outright taken away (Musk, etc)
I used to think this way, but probably not. Population growth is expected to peak at around 9.2 Billion which we will probably be able to handle if innovation and planning allows us to harness and recycle resources like it looks like they will. For example, recent innovation in desalination coming out of China that could make unsalted ocean water cheaper than tap water. Only the west has a significant toll on the environment per person, and that can be greatly reduced while bringing up the global south in a more ecologically sound way.
In chapter 16 of Socialism or Extinction Ted Reese shows how we are not in an overpopulation crisis today, but an underpopulation crisis. Medical advances and high cost of having children is leading to increase of "surplus" elderly population with fewer people to care for them. Africa's population may be growing, but they are far less densely populated then europe, without the same negative environmental contribution. So, it makes sense for them to grow. Rather than, say, letting immigrants in, Fascists use the myth of overpopulation and the real threat of underpopulation to their advantage. More justification to genocide the poor. Ultimately capitalism is what caused the population to grow, and certain populations to shrink. Now it is it's own problem. Contradictions everywhere.
Now, you are not talking about capitalism, because if we are to survive we need socialism. Socialism will have different population dynamics. With liberation from marriage/overall patriarchy and increasing access to contraceptives new contradictions will arise. On the one hand sexual and economic liberation will mean more partners and more kids. On the other hand if communities raise children rather than as a burden being primarily placed on an isolated monogamous couples, and can avoid unwanted pregnancies, instead raising them in community it will be different. People may feel less a need to have a ton of biological children. They can love and raise many people's children as their own.
It will probably vary from place to place, or could be completely different. We don't know. It doesn't matter today. Don't lose sleep over it. We can worry about it we actually establish socialism.
The main reason global population growth is plateauing today is because the average person is priced out. If luxury global space communism happened tomorrow, people would have more babies
I know that crackers are responsible for 95% of the environmental damage on the earth lol
Still doesn't change the fact that in a hypothetical perfect world, resources are still finite
and the smaller the world population, the bigger the cushion in case of any freak natural disasters/climate change
I addressed this in my original comment. A lot of people are also having a lot of children because they are struggling. Increased comfort, access to contraceptives, and relational liberation might likely have a depressing effect on population growth. There's no reason to worry about overpopulation today, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
keyword being "today", yes.
So, what, do you think it will be an issue in your lifetime? I don't think it's something anyone should worry about, especially as such fears lend toward ecofascism. If it becomes an issue people will deal with it. Idk why you're so worried about it. Btw, in your original comment it is wrong to characterize the existence of fossil fuels as the reason for population boom, just as it is wrong to blame the existence of humans for climate change. The laws of population in the modern era have been dictated by capitalism.
of course not
hundreds of years down the line, it could (in my opinion almost certainly would) be an issue if it were ignored. But yes you could "deal with it as it happens"
Materially, the human population spike is almost solely due to fossil fuels
The growth itself may have been necessitated by capitalism, but then the answer to the question of "why more slaves today?" would just be "because we haven't built socialism yet"
Your explanation is simple malthusianism and doesn't address my argument. People have burned coal for millenia. It was not until Capitalism that it become systematically exploited along with many other things to produce unprecedented abundance. Capitalism is the most efficient system at exploiting resources in history. That is why the population boomed, the necessity for growing the workforce and markets enabled by new innovation and exploitation.
I still don't know what kind of point you're trying to make with this. No one would explain anything by the lack of something to bring it to an end.