Liberals also say and do stupid shit

[scottagibson]

@magnet

And though I can’t probe the deep recesses of Yglesias’s mind, I know for a fact that he put his stupid argument on the front page as well as the cover of his new book.

Apparently you can’t even probe the deep recesses of Yglesias’s book, never mind his mind. No one says you have to, but it seems absurd to call the ideas in his book stupid if you don’t.

[Enidigm]

@scottagibson

I don’t know what that means. Which liberal says that negative growth rates are incompatible with progressive immigration laws?

I mean you just did above, in saying that Japan would benefit from immigration as they have a shrinking, aging population.

Which is true - but doesn’t solve the population issue.

There’s also a pretty big assumption that negative population rates is implicitly racist. I mean the reason Japan doesn’t encourage immigration is entirely for racial reasons. And progressives aren’t going to be anti-immigration just as a matter of course. But if you’re pro immigration AND anti-, let’s say, population grown, effectively your advocating “stealing” population from some areas and shifting them to others.

[Tortilla]

@Enidigm

Because we can’t grow forever.

Why the hell not? As long as our growth is slower than our technological progress we can keep raising the amount of usable resources in play. I firmly reject the notion that all population growth is bad population growth. I think it’s inevitable and beneficial as long as it isn’t explosive.

[scottagibson]

@Enidigm

@scottagibson

I don’t know what that means. Which liberal says that negative growth rates are incompatible with progressive immigration laws?

I mean you just did above, in saying that Japan would benefit from immigration as they have a shrinking, aging population.

I cant find your meaning (summarized as places with negative growth rates can’t have progressive immigration laws) anywhere in my sentence.

[magnet]

@scottagibson

but it seems absurd to call the ideas in his book stupid if you don’t.

That’s ridiculous. Do you need to read everything Bill Barr has written before you can judge whether he is right? Have you truly delved into the collected work of Richard Spencer? If not, how can you call him racist?

I’m perfectly capable of judging his “one billion Americans” idea based on the limited sample that I have read. I don’t know or care if there are also non-stupid ideas elsewhere in the book. If you think there are and want to discuss them, then feel free to point them out after you finally read it.

[Enidigm]

@Tortilla

Why the hell not? As long as our growth is slower than our technological progress we can keep raising the amount of usable resources in play.

You need to look at the big, big big picture. Which is energy. Effectively there are 4 or 5 big eras of human society, all of which revolve around energy generation.

Right now the wealth we enjoy is entirely due to vast surpluses of excess energy being generated, mostly, by fossil fuels. “Technological progress” means nothing if the cost per kilowatt of electricity goes from 0.12/kW to 12.12/kw or 120.12/kw for the average consumer. OTOH, if it dropped from 0.12/kW to 0.00000012/kW, you could effectively scrub the atmosphere of carbon on a small scale from the comfort of your own home backyard carbon scrubber.

Futurism requires a few big things - increased population density, increased standard of living, increased environmental quality. If you think you can navigate all three with a growing population, more soup for you. But since right now population and energy use are directly related, and energy use is directly related to carbon output, and carbon output relates directly to climate change, that’s literally just the first needle you’ll need to thread.

[Enidigm]

@scottagibson

I cant find your meaning (summarized as places with negative growth rates can’t have progressive immigration laws ) anywhere in my sentence.

So you’d support restricting or reducing immigration as part of a worldwide policy of population reduction then?

[scottagibson]

@Enidigm

So you’d support restricting or reducing immigration as part of a worldwide policy of population reduction then?

Why would I do that?

Honestly, I’m not understanding you at all. Sorry, I’m sure that’s my fault.

[Timex]

I stepped away for a few hours… Are people actually defending Yglesias’ dumb idea, or trying to argue some minute facet of it as not all bad?

[Matt_W]

@Enidigm

So you’d support restricting or reducing immigration as part of a worldwide policy of population reduction then?

What? You could have progressive immigration laws, but be undesirable for immigrants. You could have not enough influx of immigrants to make up for declining birth rates. You’re assuming that progressive immigration laws=more immigrants.

Obviously immigration is zero sum globally. But there is more than one country on earth. And migration isn’t frictionless.

[Enidigm]

@Matt_W

What? You could have progressive immigration laws, but be undesirable for immigrants. You could have not enough influx of immigrants to make up for declining birth rates. You’re assuming that progressive immigration laws=more immigrants.

What i mean is that could you imagine a country decide that it should reduce it’s population in order to increase its standard of living? Which means, by it’s nature, reducing (but not necessarily ending) immigration? Or do you think it’s impossible for a shrinking country to raise its standard of living? Or do you think it’s better if the country grows even if the average standard of living declines? Or that the country grows and the standard of living increases, regardless of the environmental consequences?

[scottagibson]

@magnet

I’m perfectly capable of judging his “one billion Americans” idea based on the limited sample that I have read.

That is not a thing which is at all evident to me, sorry. And doubling down on I have not read his book but I know it is stupid because I did read the jacket leaf is pretty fucking bizarre, I have to say. Me, not having read his book, I don’t know if it is stupid or not.

[RothdaTheTruculent]

@Timex

I stepped away for a few hours… Are people actually defending Yglesias’ dumb idea, or trying to argue some minute facet of it as not all bad?

Underneath the layer of dumb ideas there is supposed to be a hidden smart idea. Which no one has been willing to state yet. For my part I’m dying of excitement here; I’m incredibly eager for this hidden gem of logic to be revealed. The anticipation is killing me.

[Tortilla]

@Enidigm

You need to look at the big, big big picture. Which is energy. Effectively there are 4 or 5 big eras of human society, all of which revolve around energy generation.

Right now the wealth we enjoy is entirely due to vast surpluses of excess energy being generated, mostly, by fossil fuels. “Technological progress” means nothing if the cost per kilowatt of electricity goes from 0.12/kW to 12.12/kw or 120.12/kw for the average consumer. OTOH, if it dropped from 0.12/kW to 0.00000012/kW, you could effectively scrub the atmosphere of carbon on a small scale from the comfort of your own home backyard carbon scrubber.

Futurism requires a few big things - increased population density, increased standard of living, increased environmental quality. If you think you can navigate all three with a growing population, more soup for you. But since right now population and energy use are directly related, and energy use is directly related to carbon output, and carbon output relates directly to climate change, that’s literally just the first needle you’ll need to thread.

What in the name of god are you talking about? That tangent into energy policy is so far out in left field that I really can’t respond.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, but I see no reason why we can’t CLEANLY continue providing resources for a growing population.

[scottagibson]

@Enidigm

Or do you think it’s impossible for a shrinking country to raise its standard of living?

Is Japan’s standard of living declining? I have no idea, but I would be surprised to learn that was the case. I imagine that it is rising at more or less the same rate as that of the rest of the industrialized world.

[Enidigm]

@Tortilla

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, but I see no reason why we can’t CLEANLY continue providing resources for a growing population.

I mean the issue with environmentalism is dealing with externalities. What i’m just throwing up directly here are the sources of the bottlenecks of those externalities.

If you think we can create a 100% green economy and still have a growing population, great! That’s step one, let’s do that. But let’s not say “let’s have a constantly growing population” and figure out that annoying green stuff later.

[Tortilla]

@Enidigm

If you think we can create a 100% green economy and still have a growing population, great! That’s step one, let’s do that. But let’s not say “let’s have a constantly growing population” and figure out that annoying green stuff later.

I do think that, but since we are way out in hypothetical land talking about some future growth in American population or world population I’m not sure it’s really on-topic to stop and figure it out right now. For the sake of a future-population hypothetical discussion, I think we can hand-wave it off as opposed to having to stop to solve it before we can discuss population growth.

If you believe that all population growth is problematic because the environmental issues aren’t solved and you fear they are unlikely to be solved, then I can respect that. But not agree with it.

[Matt_W]

It is apparent that, at all times, Matthew Yglesias being a pundit, he must be totally serious and only ever propose policies that are entirely realizable and never try to stimulate thinking by suggesting anything outside the boundaries of conventional thought.

@Enidigm

What i mean is that could you imagine a country decide that it should reduce it’s population in order to increase its standard of living? Which means, by it’s nature, reducing (but not necessarily ending) immigration? Or do you think it’s impossible for a shrinking country to raise its standard of living? Or do you think it’s better if the country grows even if the average standard of living declines? Or that the country grows and the standard of living increases, regardless of the environmental consequences?

I can’t really parse this. Economies aren’t zero sum. Increasing population does not, in general, lead to reduced standard of living. More often, the opposite. The environmental consequences of increased standard of living are hard to quantify, but the thinking is pernicious. I mean yeah, there’s a link between population and standard of living and energy consumption on a global scale, but how fine grained is it? Does density matter? Are there countries that do this better than others? Should we deliberately try to reduce people’s standard of living? Whose?

[Matt_W]

Certainly if one decides that Matthew Yglesias is stupid, it’s easy to justify that decision. If one decides he’s worth consideration, such consideration generally turns out to have merit.

[Enidigm]

@Matt_W

The environmental consequences of increased standard of living are hard to quantify, but the thinking is pernicious. I mean yeah, there’s a link between population and standard of living and energy consumption on a global scale, but how fine grained is it? Does density matter? Are there countries that do this better than others?

I mean those are all great questions, and have a range of answers. But it’s not pernicious to understand the environmental costs of population growth and standard of living - in fact it’s absolutely essential. Just because, even in America where most people don’t apparently “see” the costs but many still believe environmentalism is a good idea, don’t really follow through with the deeper conclusions understand that means. (Just like recycling was both a scam by plastic producers and something that China was happy to buy from us… until they didn’t, and now nobody is able to recycle anything anymore, because recycling economics don’t actually make sense. Figuring out how to recycle economically is looking reality square in the face, rather than exporting to another country where it magically disappears).

I mean just setting aside land use, or the scouring of the oceans, deforestation in the Amazon, ect. Just energy. Energy use worldwide is literally linear with population. So… you’ve got to deal with that. If you don’t want to deal with that, that’s fine… but you don’t really buy into the environmental arguments, not really. You just figure it will all work itself out, somehow.

If you take environmentalism seriously though, you can’t just handwave away growth as the answer.