Unquotable: Hitchens

One of the more annoying behaviors I've noticed is an increasing number of people quoting other well-known, and possibly intelligent people in an effort to appear intelligent themselves.  Unfortunately, it seems to work, at least among other not-so-intelligent people.  Well, at least until someone with enough intelligence comes along and asks, "What does that mean?"  And the answer is, "I don't know… I just thought it sounded cool."  Or something similar.  One of my personal favorites is, "I can't think how to explain it," which really means "I don't understand it myself."  So, in an effort to stem the tide of false intelligence on the internet, this post marks the beginning of a series of posts to 1) explain the quote, and 2) explain what's wrong with the quote.

This first quote comes from Christopher Hitchens.  I actually had never heard of him until he died, which probably just shows how sheltered of a life I've lived.  I heard of him then only because someone decided to quote Mr. Hitchens as follows: "We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid."

I first saw this quote on someone's Facebook status, and hence was actually how I found out about Christopher Hitchens.  It was posted on or around Mr. Hitchens' death, when a lot of pseudo-intellects were running around mourning his death.  Of course, the status got a lot of "likes," at least until I happened on it, and responded with something like: "There is no such conclusive evidence at all.  There is only conclusive evidence that people are mean, selfish and stupid.  Religion just gives many of them an excuse."

I was summarily unfriended by this person.  The reason that I felt compelled to respond to this post was that the person who posted the status has never read the bible, and yet professes to be an atheist.  Indeed cannot even answer relatively simple questions such as why he believes in the nonexistence of God over the existence of God.  I personally think he has chosen atheism simply because not believing requires less effort, not to mention that atheism is seen by many as being much more awesome than believing in God.  After all, it appears to be way more brave when one is defying the almighty.

Now, in retrospect, I may have been a bit hasty in my response, because I see that the second part of the quote refers not to religion, but to faith, and in that regard the quote may have more truth to it than I originally thought.  Of course, faith can be defined in terms of religion and is often used that way, and this quote appears to imply that definition.  But, if we look at the more general definition of faith, the quote becomes something different, and in fact, becomes a statement of what I actually said in my response.  Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.  The very act of acting out of faith will often lead to mean, selfish, and yes stupid actions because faith comes from emotional thought processes rather than rational thoughts.

So, there you have it.  What's wrong with the quote is that it's used as an argument against religious faith, but it is really a comment on humanity in general.  If there were no religion, people would find something new to hate each other for.

No, overpopulation is not a myth

Written in response to:
Guest Post: The Myth Of Over-Population

The claim made in this post is that overpopulation is not a problem, and that, in fact, we need to continue increasing the population in order to maintain, or improve, our standard of living.  This is an oversimplification of the world in which we live and actually relies on a few fallacies to give the appearance of credibility.

"The world is not overcrowded at all. There are vast swaths of unpopulated land all over the place. Siberia, Canada, Africa, Australia, even the rural USA all contain more than enough wide open spaces."

This is actually something I've considered often on my commute to and from work in Salt Lake City, Utah.  There are large unpopulated areas even here, which begs the question, "How is it possible that the world is overpopulated?"

According to Wikipedia: The world's population is around 7 billion, and Earth's total area (including land and water) is 510 million square kilometers (197 million square miles). Therefore the worldwide human population density is around 7 billion ÷ 510 million = 13.7 per km2 (35 per sq. mile).

The large, unpopulated areas give the appearance that overpopulation isn't a real problem.  Large cities is where the real surprise comes from.  According to this site, the highest density population city in the world in 2007 was Mumbai, India, with a density of 29,650 people per square kilometer.  Having never been there, it's difficult for me to even imagine living in a place with so many people packed into such a small area.  I mean, is there even enough room for everyone to just stand without touching someone else?  I used to live near Los Angeles, and I though that was pretty crowded, but at only 2,750 people per square kilometer it doesn't compare.

So, maybe 13.7 people per square kilometer is, or isn't, terribly overpopulated.  Of course, this also includes areas that are uninhabitable, such as Antarctica.  I probably won't be volunteering to go live there in order to make more room for others.  It also includes oceans… well, you get the idea.

The author goes on to say that the argument that resources are finite and that humans consume resources ignores the fact that humans also produce resources, and in fact produce more resources than they consume as evidenced by the rising standard of living amongst humans.  The fallacy in this argument is that all resources are not the same.  In other words, humans don't actually produce ANY basic natural resources, like oil or aluminum.  And the author's statement that "Every consumer is also a producer as well" is also wrong.  Some consumers produce nothing at all, and while I don't have any specific data to back up my opinion, I believe the growing numbers of people collecting disability benefits here in the U.S. seems to support the idea that the number of non-producers, or under-producers, is growing.  (A side note on the disability issue comes from here: "In May 2013, with a record 8,877,921 American workers collecting disability and 116,053,000 working full-time, there were only 13 Americans working full-time for each worker on disability.")

The author goes on to talk about how a greater population will increase the likelihood of greater innovation, which will lead to higher standards of living and greater productivity.  I'm not so sure about that.  Einstein lived in a period when the world's population was much smaller than it is now, but I don't really see a lot of new Einsteins around.  Just saying.  Innovation today is making things smaller, and cramming more devices into a single box, then making different colors.  And people standing around texting has had the opposite effect of increasing productivity.

At any rate, the author concludes in a typical economist fashion that increasing population is good.  If you assume that everything just goes on the way it always has, more people means more production, and more production means the world is a better place.  But the real limits of a finite world mean that sooner or later a day of reckoning will come, and having billions of people on Earth isn't going to make it better, it will make it more difficult.  I mean, what if something catastrophic happens and the world's food supply is suddenly disrupted?  It's a simpler problem when the population is smaller than it is.  It's also something that becomes more likely as the population increases.  There is only so much arable land on the earth, and the best of that land is already being used to grow food.  And perhaps the only reason there is enough food for the world now is because of "innovation;" in other words, the dreaded GMOs, which have increased the food supply, but at who knows what cost.

The fact is that the world cannot continue on the way it is and continue to grow in terms of population.  As population density increases, people will need to live in increasingly sustainable ways.  As individuals, I think it's unlikely that people will make sustainable choices, and so as the population increases, we'll see greater governmental control over our personal lives, something we're seeing even now.  I, for one, don't want to see that, but, you know, if you want another baby, just go ahead and have one, because people shouldn't have to worry about the greater consequences of their actions.  What's one more baby amongst billions?  And besides, that next baby may just be the savior of our species.