The Overpopulation Argument

[SnapSlav]

So the topic of "the world is overpopulated" has come up a number of times around the office in the last few months. I dunno if it's just a coincidence, but every time I can remember, it was Asians (Orientals, as per Stef's recent comment that he wants to bring that word back, which I'd be happy to oblige and contribute, but must admit I prefer to say "Asian" out of habit) who brought up the statement, and everyone else just affirmed them. Whether it was preference cascade causing more skeptical people to hide their less-than-convinced stand, or whether I was the only person in the room who thought (on the inside), "No, the world' isn't overpopulated, that's just a line of bullshit you've bought into", no one else so much as attempted to refute that claim. I tried, but both because I haven't refined my in-person argumentation skills in a long time, and because I held back so as not to place myself in an awkward position at work, I didn't convince anybody.

So I'm wondering, what are the arguments in support and opposition of the claim that the planet is overpopulated? Obviously, the claim is about humans, not ants nor deer, and the issue isn't necessarily that the number of bodies itself is too high, but that the sustainability of providing for any single human life is impossible at the scale of how many total lives we are at now. Whether it's a matter solely about food scarcity, or living space, or waste disposal space (or others I haven't noted), or a combination, this is usually what people are talking about when they mention "overpopulation". They're not talking about Jews or Armenians being densely packed into close quarters during their respective genocides.

My observations are...

I'd argue that living space is definitely not a problem, because technology has brought us multi-level buildings, so the same square footage of land has had its capacity for living space multiplied many times fold over the recent centuries. The industrial and post-industrial eras, in particular, have brought about the advent of skyscrapers, which may be used as either office spaces, or as hotels and apartment complexes. So "packing" human beings into enough room isn't the issue, although I suppose someone like Paul Joseph Watson would argue that people want to living in homes, not apartments, and they don't want to live in plain, glass towers like skyscrapers, but the issue is not pleasing humans, but providing for humans, so I'm going to ignore that argument for this topic's sake for the time being. So, as I've presented the matter of technology allowing for multiplication of the use of land area by occupying increasing levels of building stories, "living space" is not in immediately short supply, so that leg of the overpopulation stool is gone.

Likewise, I'd pose that food provision is also a matter of technological advancement. With the advent of GM crops, botanists have developed drought-resistant, disease resistant, higher-yield crops. Combined with better methods of cultivation, like crop rotation, green houses, and many other utilities designed to enhance our ability to produce food that I'm not even aware of, coupled with a production-centric economic model like Capitalism that creates abundance of resources, is "not enough food" really a problem at all? Isn't it just that some places have too many people and not enough food provision, while other places have a far greater capacity for food production relative to their populations? So the issue isn't the ability to produce enough food, it's something else that's preventing some places from doing so, isn't it? For example, foreign aid acting as a disincentive for productivity and an incentive to reproduce. Either way, would it not follow that the "not enough food" leg of the overpopulation stool has also been knocked off?

So lastly there's waste disposal. Here I don't really have any arguments about the issue, so much as I'm going to fall back on the expertise of someone else. In this case, Angela Logomasini of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, demonstrated in the "Recycling" episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! with a visual aid that a tiny portion of land (relative to the rest of the country) could account for 1000 years of landfill space, were there all disposal to be 100% landfill and 0% recycling. So if that's accurate, then all hopes of standing on the overpopulation stool have all but flown out the window, as the last leg it has to stand on (that I know of) is not well and truly gone. But beyond that, there's the argument that much, MUCH older civilizations, far less advanced than where we are at right now- namely, medieval Europeans -effectively lived in their own filth, and they built their cities on top of their older cities, and "filling the land" (in this case, with entire cities) hasn't proven to be any issue over the last several centuries. And yet again, as with the previous 2 matters, technological advancement is a present matter. So would it not follow that techniques to use the most of space have made efficient use of space where waste is concerned a moot point, too?

I'm sure there's plenty of other arguments, so tell me what I've missed, or where I may be completely mistaken! If I'm not wrong, how can I effectively communicate that overpopulation is either not a pressing issue, or possibly even a lie, to these people who so confidently express that it's real and there's nothing they can do about it besides affirm its reality, and that they should adopt rather than procreate? Because I'm tired of seeing relatively intelligent people nice themselves into extinction, as well as I'm tired of hearing leftist platitudes everywhere I go, but I don't want to go on some spontaneous tirade when I could present a compelling case to  persuade someone instead.

[Boss]

Well, for me it has always been basic economics. When the supply of humans increases, the demand for human resources increases, thus the price of human resources will rise. When prices rise, the humans that cant afford to have kids can't populate. Thus "overpopulation" cant happen in a free market.

The real issue goes back to the people with guns, stealing peoples money and giving it to people who otherwise couldn't have been able to populate. Like when people gave financial aid to places like Africa, they think they are fine now and then have kids, but, then the money runs out and they starve to death. As they didn't have the resources beforehand(if they did they wouldn't have needed financial aid). Also, another example is the welfare state in Venezuela, The state ran out of money and the population that relied on the welfare state and couldn't gather resources in the free market are dying. Its not overpopulation, it was a false population.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/world/americas/venezuela-hunger.html?mcubz=1

IMO There is no such thing as overpopulation, just populations of people who wouldn't have been around in a free market. 

As long as you can gather resources there won't be overpopulation. Like some of the Venezuelan people are hunting cats, dogs and zoo animals to survive

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/02/10/venezuelans-killing-flamingos-and-anteaters-to-stave-off-hunger-amid-mounting-food-crisis.html

Some may think the resources ran out but the reality was they didnt have any resources to begin with as the state prints fiat. 

TL:DR In the free market overpopulation cant exist, the state, however, creates false populations that create issues.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

"So when are you going to kill yourself to help with the problem?"

[ofd]

Quote

Likewise, I'd pose that food provision is also a matter of technological advancement.

Not really. To sustain a population of the current size, you need cheap fossil fuels and fertilizers. One important ingredit to fertilizer, Phosphorus, is very limited, we may run out of it in about 20 years. Other fertilizer is based on the availability of cheap fossil fuel.

[SnapSlav]

On 9/28/2017 at 9:06 PM, Boss said:

Well, for me it has always been basic economics. When the supply of humans increases, the demand for human resources increases, thus the price of human resources will rise. When prices rise, the humans that cant afford to have kids can't populate. Thus "overpopulation" cant happen in a free market. [...] IMO There is no such thing as overpopulation, just populations of people who wouldn't have been around in a free market. As long as you can gather resources there won't be overpopulation. Like some of the Venezuelan people are hunting cats, dogs and zoo animals to survive [...] Some may think the resources ran out but the reality was they [didn't] have any resources to begin with as the state prints fiat. 

TL:DR In the free market overpopulation cant exist, the state, however, creates false populations that create issues.

I largely agree. So again, the question becomes "how do I convince them of this"?

As I recall, I tried to touch on the subject of racial differences in one of the conversations, and the guy got very defensive when we got there. Obviously he didn't want to get anywhere near race realism. For reference, this is a guy who, when I wasn't even trying to convince him of it, after a few words, he looked mind-blown at me and asked, "Wait a minute, are you telling me Climate Change isn't real?" Basically, he's a very indoctrinated person, and in some areas it looks like he just hasn't taken a pill yet, and in other areas it looks like he's taken the blue pill. So with someone like this, it's very tough to give them enlightening information if they're unwilling to accept it.

By contrast, a different conversation with a different person was with this 18-19 year old girl when asked about her plans for the future, she happily gushed that she was going to get a law degree, then maybe have 1 kid and adopt 1 kid, "because overpopulation". Earlier she had made it clear that philosophy was of interest to her, and she'd been part of debate teams in high school. So already we're seeing that contestant #2 looks MUCH more promising than contestant #1, in that their pushback wasn't as severe, and their openness to talking about difficult subjects was much greater.

One thing I think is clear is that these need to be 1-on-1 discussions, less influence from a group who may chime in and distract from what you're saying, or deviate from the topic. I also think I'd need to do a little probing of their thoughts so that I have a better understanding of what their formed opinions are, so that I can explore where there are good openings to work with, any "chink in the armor" to exploit, as it were, to being with discussion. I can't just go in guns blazing with, "You're wrong about overpopulation." At least, I don't think that would be remotely as effective... XD

 

On 9/28/2017 at 11:12 PM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

"So when are you going to kill yourself to help with the problem?"

Dude, apples and oranges. I'm not talking about the "Earth First" psychos protesting outside of shopping centers with signs talking about there being "too many people", and whose sole comments is that there are "too many people". I'm talking about the naive people who will cite "overpopulation" as their reason for doing or not doing something. In this instance, it's adoption versus procreation. They're kids, barely adults, and they're saying with GLEE that they will adopt because "overpopulation". To them, there's no need to have their own children when they can adopt, because adoption means taking children from families that could not provide for those children, and that the only different between children they raise of their own and children they raise of another's is simply that they will not look like them, because otherwise they're the same.

Clearly there's a lot of room to work with, here... provided they're willing the listen. For one thing, they're following the assumption that we're all blank slates, entirely subjects of our environment, and there are no racial differences, so adopting an African child would be exactly the same as raising their own biological Asian children, which is absolutely false. But how do we argue that point to them? Secondly, there's the matter that they're overlooking incentives when they're "removing burdens" from families that don't have the resources to sustain their numbers. They're assuming that solves the problem, rather than those families feeling like they've just been given a free ticket to create MORE "burdens". It's back to basic r versus K again, where these (ostensibly) K people are assuming everyone else is K, when in fact they are r, and they will go back to pumping out babies they cannot feed the moment you take them off their hands.

Believe me, if these were just those assholes who say "there needs to be fewer people in the world", I would be the first to snarkily ask them when they can do "their part" to lower the population size. But these are different people, different subject, completely different motivations. That phrase just does not apply to this scenario.

 

On 9/29/2017 at 7:20 AM, ofd said:

Quote

Likewise, I'd pose that food provision is also a matter of technological advancement.

Not really. To sustain a population of the current size, you need cheap fossil fuels and fertilizers. One important ingredit to fertilizer, Phosphorus, is very limited, we may run out of it in about 20 years. Other fertilizer is based on the availability of cheap fossil fuel.

You say "not really", but your comment just suggests to me that it is indeed a matter of technology and its advancement. If Phosphorus is essential, chemistry as a study was designed to take molecules and break them apart or combine them together, as needed. Break apart water to get pure hydrogen and pure oxygen, combine sodium and chlorine to get salt, etc. Beyond just simple chemistry, we have conquered the splitting of the atom, and it's been the next goal to achieve the combination of atoms, so in theory technology could "create" more Phosphorus. Besides that, your statement of "we may run out of [Phosphorus] in about 20 years" reminds me heavily of the "peak oil" argument, which was pure nonsense. Speaking of which, the second half was "cheap fossil fuel", which as it so happens we ARE acquiring as our technology gets better and better! So it sounds like gathering the necessary resources to create more food is a matter of technology, even though you opined that it's not.

[Gavitor]

On 9/28/2017 at 11:12 PM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

"So when are you going to kill yourself to help with the problem?"

Damn you beat me to it.

That's the easiest answer whenever someone brings up overpopulation. If you think there are too many people then lower the amount by killing yourself.

There is so much free space on this planet that we are no where near capacity yet.

[ofd]

Quote

so in theory technology could "create" more Phosphorus.

Where can that theory be found?
 

Quote

reminds me heavily of the "peak oil" argument, which was pure nonsense.

Peak oil means that oil production follows a bell shaped like curve. After the peak is reached, the production goes into a decline. Hubbert got the date of peak oil wrong, the rest of his arguments are uncontroversial.

 

Quote

even though you opined that it's not.

Every plants needs trace minerals, CO2, water, and soil to grow. If one ingredient is missing it will die. Unless new reserves for Phosphorus are found, it will be depleted in 20 years.

[SnapSlav]

1 hour ago, Gavitor said:

Damn you beat me to it.

That's the easiest answer whenever someone brings up overpopulation. If you think there are too many people then lower the amount by killing yourself.

There is so much free space on this planet that we are no where near capacity yet.

Again, wrong audience. There are the kinds of people who will bemoan "there are too many people", and then there are people who will explain away their decisions because "overpopulation". We're dealing with the latter, not the former. I frankly don't even engage with the former, if I can help it. But the latter are people who CAN (possibly) be "saved". Thus the question of how to convince them.

[WorBlux]

On 9/29/2017 at 9:20 AM, ofd said:

Not really. To sustain a population of the current size, you need cheap fossil fuels and fertilizers. One important ingredit to fertilizer, Phosphorus, is very limited, we may run out of it in about 20 years. Other fertilizer is based on the availability of cheap fossil fuel.

If you limit yourself to conventional agriculture, yes, not really. A bit cheaper nuclear combined with aquaculture, algaculture, entoculutre, and bacterial feedstocks, you could create a lot of food. Phosphorous isn't really all that limited, it just likes to bind up with other stuff in the environment, but you can extract it if you have the energy to do so.  The tech to do it is all there, the main problem of actually coordinating toward more intensive production while increasing land held in reserve.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

5 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

There are the kinds of people who will bemoan "there are too many people", 

"I agree. So stop talking and get the fuck out of my space."

[Gavitor]

8 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

there are people who will explain away their decisions because "overpopulation"

Can you be more specific? I dont know what makes this group different from the other.

[ofd]

Quote

The tech to do it is all there, the main problem of actually coordinating toward more intensive production while increasing land held in reserve.

The main problem is scalability once the Phosphorus fields are about to run out and the price rises so other methods of extraction become economical. You have to bridge a gap, where Phosphorus becomes rare. And during that time, the price of fertilizer will go up dramatically.

[Jsbrads]

Lots of good knowledge here

Actually the only reason we use the fertilizers we use is because they are cheaper than other forms.

powdered rock is a super fertilizer.

there are also many more complex chemical processes that would cost more.

current world population can fit in suburban housing inside state of Texas.

water recycling could provide for all water needs. 

Skyscrapper farms can provide large percentage of food requirements (already designed, also contain underground fish farms which contribute fertilizer)

Nuclear can provide all electrical power generation for many years

frakking has provided us many new large wells, and will probably soon provide us many more

fusion will eventually get here (I think) and can provide all our power on planet until we are ready to move into space.

and then moving farming into illuminated multistory underground bunkers... to free up even more space...

electrical power can support production of biofuels if we need to use those in the future  

 

[SnapSlav]

On 9/30/2017 at 11:35 PM, Gavitor said:

Can you be more specific? I dont know what makes this group different from the other.

At the risk of feeding a possible troll... The difference is one is spiteful and the other is empathetic. Both believe the same lie, but they react to it completely differently. One can be reasoned with, the other cannot. Obviously we reserve the snarky comebacks for the ones who cannot be reasoned with, because why waste our time trying to explain a reasoned argument to them if they're just going to reject it, when you could just be a jerk to them, accomplish just as much, but at least elicit some slight enjoyment out of the exchange? By contrast, the other is responding to the lie with thought-out plans to try to help however they can. Clearly they mean well, aren't getting in anyone's face being belligerent, and maybe- just maybe- can be reasoned with. It's like pointing out the difference between a Communist who believes it because they're broken in all the right ways that they will reject any efforts to persuade them, and a Communist who believes it because they've been propagandized their whole lives, but would embrace the truth if it were ever presented to them. One can be saved, the other we call Antifa.

 

On 10/1/2017 at 3:38 AM, Jsbrads said:

Lots of good knowledge here [...] Actually the only reason we use the fertilizers we use is because they are cheaper than other forms. [...] powdered rock is a super fertilizer. [...] there are also many more complex chemical processes that would cost more. [...] current world population can fit in suburban housing inside state of Texas. [...] water recycling could provide for all water needs. [...] [Skyscraper] farms can provide large percentage of food requirements (already designed, also contain underground fish farms which contribute fertilizer) [...] Nuclear can provide all electrical power generation for many years [...] [Fracking] has provided us many new large wells, and will probably soon provide us many more [...] fusion will eventually get here (I think) and can provide all our power on planet until we are ready to move into space. [...] and then moving farming into illuminated multistory underground bunkers... to free up even more space... [...] electrical power can support production of biofuels if we need to use those in the future

A wonderful list of examples of what I was getting at. If it isn't a problem with fertilizer, it's new methods of accessing more fossil fuels. If it's not fossil fuels, it's nuclear power. Etc etc. The list of possible technologies to provide for the future keeps infinitely expanding, and I just don't see us "exhausting" our resources anytime soon. Like Boss said at the top (and I agree), it's an economic issue. We'll never reach "overcapacity", because if we ever near "capacity", we'll correct for that, so long as there are market incentives (common sense) to do so.

I look at all technology from the perspective of, "how did the average citizen perceive 'fuel' when they were heavily reliant on whale oil?" To me, the answer is, "they had no idea what could be invented in the future", which means we have no idea what will be created in the future, either. So all the doom-and-gloom naysayers insisting that we're going to run out of X are implying that technology is and will always be what they can currently expect/understand, when it's more likely a matter of "people will find a way, we just don't know what that way is yet".

[Gavitor]

4 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

At the risk of feeding a possible troll... The difference is one is spiteful and the other is empathetic. Both believe the same lie, but they react to it completely differently. One can be reasoned with, the other cannot. Obviously we reserve the snarky comebacks for the ones who cannot be reasoned with, because why waste our time trying to explain a reasoned argument to them if they're just going to reject it, when you could just be a jerk to them, accomplish just as much, but at least elicit some slight enjoyment out of the exchange? By contrast, the other is responding to the lie with thought-out plans to try to help however they can. Clearly they mean well, aren't getting in anyone's face being belligerent, and maybe- just maybe- can be reasoned with. It's like pointing out the difference between a Communist who believes it because they're broken in all the right ways that they will reject any efforts to persuade them, and a Communist who believes it because they've been propagandized their whole lives, but would embrace the truth if it were ever presented to them. One can be saved, the other we call Antifa.

So can they be reasoned with or are you just assuming such because in one sentence you say they can and in another you say maybe they can. As far as I'm concerned they are the same until they stop being in that group. If they can be reasoned with then they will give up that irrational position and so wont be in that group.

[SnapSlav]

42 minutes ago, Gavitor said:

So can they be reasoned with or are you just assuming such because in one sentence you say they can and in another you say maybe they can.

One is a description of a character archetype (e.g. "the well-meaning, but uninformed, who is capable of being convinced"), the other is an admission of personal fallibility (e.g. "they are or they aren't that type of person, I don't know yet"). Words underlined represent those distinct uses of the words "can" and "maybe can" that you are referring to. These are two separate statements, not contradictory statements.

Personal fallibility doesn't mean the person can't be reasoned with, it just means the observer doesn't KNOW (yet) that they can or cannot be reasoned with, but as I explained in the topic introduction, my interactions with these particular individuals is that they appear to be of the persuadable variety, with the proper approach/method/information. Ergo, the topic, asking, "What are these approaches/methods/knowledge-bombs that I may use?"

I mean, for fuck's sake, what bigger cue do you need that someone IS of the variety that CAN be convinced, than them being a leading member of their school's debate team, and going into college to major in Philosophy? I'm not saying it's 100% shut and closed, without any possibility of being otherwise, but that's closer to 100 than 0, that's for damn sure...

 

1 hour ago, Gavitor said:

As far as I'm concerned they are the same until they stop being in that group.

Right, that's the whole POINT of the topic: Methods to use to separate those who can be saved from those who cannot...

 

1 hour ago, Gavitor said:

If they can be reasoned with then they will give up that irrational position and so wont be in that group.

I'm not interested in assertions that a group is a monolith... until it's not. On top of being nonsensical, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. I didn't ask, "Are there people who can be convinced that this is not true?" I stated, "I don't think this is true," and also asked, "What can I present to convince these people (of whom I believe to be persuadable) that it is not true?"

Obviously some people are just "meant" to be part of those psychopathic hive-mind groups... whether their upbringing "broke" them in just the right way that that's where they "belonged", or whether they were just born that special kind of evil... I don't think "why" matters. They cannot be saved. I've indicated several times that I don't give a damn about these people. If it is your assertion that they're ALL of this variety, then would that not preclude you from having any input in this topic, since the topic was about the kinds of people you're asserting that they are not?

[Gavitor]

53 minutes ago, SnapSlav said:

If it is your assertion that they're ALL of this variety, then would that not preclude you from having any input in this topic, since the topic was about the kinds of people you're asserting that they are not?

It's really not hard to figure out though. Why do they think the earth is over populated?

Because 8 billion is a big number? How do they know how many people can live on the planet?

These people just assert its over populated and there is a simple solution to their perceived problem.

Why do you need to convince them that its not true when they have failed to convince you (and anyone with two brain cells to rub together) that it is?

[SnapSlav]

Totally missed the point I was getting at, but whatever... I'll just accept and enjoy the irony at this point, as little as I can.

5 hours ago, Gavitor said:

It's really not hard to figure out though. Why do they think the earth is over populated?

Because 8 billion is a big number? How do they know how many people can live on the planet?

I should think it's pretty obvious why they think this: because that's what they've been told. Do people spontaneously come to the conclusion that the planet is warming dangerously because of human activity? No, they think that because that's what they've been told. Do people out of nowhere arrive to the same conclusion on a massive scale that there is society-wide racial injustice occurring where they can't possibly know about it? No, they think that because that's what they've been told.

[M.2]

Hi, SnapSlav

I think you forgot to mention a very important thing. What are their arguments supporting the idea of overpopulation? If you don't mind, I'll answer in your stead.

As much of liberal thought, theirs may be supported by cherry-picked data, but is not based on data. And if you are trying to convince them with data, you may as well do something productive instead.

It was quite absurd when the United Nations came to our school and started talking about overpopulation. This was in the most sparsely populated country in the world, so... yeah. Much cognitive dissonance.

The idea of overpopulation is based on sentiment. It is quite simple. Liberals do not value life. You only have too much of something if you consider it lacking in value. These are the same people who go to "Africa" as they call it (I call it Ethipoia), and take a few selfies with a couple dozen black children, and use them for virtue signaling on facebook. These are the people that visit a special care home once a year, fool around with the freakiest looking boy for two hours, and then bring it up whenever you talk about shrinking the government; "who will take care of them, you monster?!". These are the people who come to the Balkan Wall with signs chanting "the future is brown". These people make me sick.
I know a Korean woman who had been adobted by a belgian couple when she was an infant because "overpopulation". They brought her over a continent away, but after 5 years when they found out she was mentally disabled, they abandoned. Then 40 years later, turns out she had a brother whom they did not abandon, since he was normal.

These people are evil. They do not value human life, and that it why they think there are too many.

[SnapSlav]

On 10/7/2017 at 8:15 AM, Mishi2 said:

Hi, SnapSlav

I think you forgot to mention a very important thing. What are their arguments supporting the idea of overpopulation? If you don't mind, I'll answer in your stead.

As much of liberal thought, theirs may be supported by cherry-picked data, but is not based on data. And if you are trying to convince them with data, you may as well do something productive instead.

It was quite absurd when the United Nations came to our school and started talking about overpopulation. This was in the most sparsely populated country in the world, so... yeah. Much cognitive dissonance.

The idea of overpopulation is based on sentiment. It is quite simple. Liberals do not value life. You only have too much of something if you consider it lacking in value. These are the same people who go to "Africa" as they call it (I call it Ethipoia), and take a few selfies with a couple dozen black children, and use them for virtue signaling on facebook. These are the people that visit a special care home once a year, fool around with the freakiest looking boy for two hours, and then bring it up whenever you talk about shrinking the government; "who will take care of them, you monster?!". These are the people who come to the Balkan Wall with signs chanting "the future is brown". These people make me sick.
I know a Korean woman who had been adobted by a belgian couple when she was an infant because "overpopulation". They brought her over a continent away, but after 5 years when they found out she was mentally disabled, they abandoned. Then 40 years later, turns out she had a brother whom they did not abandon, since he was normal.

These people are evil. They do not value human life, and that it why they think there are too many.

Oh, I didn't forget to mention their arguments... They didn't present any arguments. Remember, I said the subject came up as an explanation for why they said they wanted to adopt instead of having their own children, and then everyone else just affirmed them when they expressed that. There was no arguing, and when I pushed back against that even slightly, they had no "points" at the ready to make. I avoided going full debate-mode, because these are people in and around my work-space, and I didn't want to make my working area/office antagonistic towards me, so I didn't even put up any effort.

A little background... I'm from Southern California, which has been dubbed "Commiefornia" by many, and not without good reason. We're a "hip/young" culture out here, and hip and young is socialist. We're inundated with leftist platitudes in the news, the movies, TV shows, and even everybody's favorite youtube channels (just look at the hosts of Buzzfeed, all kids, all sickly, all "rainbow-haired"). Everywhere you go, you're bombarded by leftism, and it's just taken by everybody who's out and about that these things are a given. They regurgitate, they don't cognate. By contrast, the conservative or non-liberal people keep to themselves. They don't speak up, they don't rock the boat, much like how I was cautious around everyone else at work. But we're not silent, we just gauge our audience before we say anything. Having done a lot of door-to-door, I know I've seen MANY good-minded people, but they're usually shut up in those houses, not interacting with anybody, because they don't want to find themselves on the receiving  end of a pitchfork. They're the silent Trump voters that the NY Times didn't predict, because they didn't make their intentions loud and clear. They're there, but you don't know that they're there.

So if a leftist ideology ever comes up in conversation out here, people are likely to just agree out of habit. They don't ask tough questions, they don't stick out their neck and say that they disagree. The couple times when "overpopulation" was mentioned around the office, everyone just nodded, looked solemn, and said "right". One guy I spoke to at the office said something that I had thought on my own, when the both of us had gauged each other as "safe" to confide in: "liberalism is a mental disorder". These people are just mental children. They don't have arguments, they just repeat what they've been told.

So the issue is a tad more complicated than having valid points to bring up to them. It's also how you approach them with those facts. "Hey, remember that conversation we had earlier? Well I was thinking about it, decided to do my research, and I'd like to tell you now that you were completely wrong. Interested in what proof I've got?" Might go over well with an analytical person like myself, but these touchy-feely kids will just explode. To me, the Socratic method, and constantly begging the question might be the most effective. On the other hand, it might just make the "conversation" repetitive and go nowhere, because asking them questions will yield no results.

But I do agree with you. The people you described are evil. The question isn't how we save them, it's how do we save the victims of their virus-like ideology from becoming them in the future? These people I'm talking about were kids. Late teens, early twenties. They grew up in that socialist bubble of Commiefornia. They grew up in Plato's cave, and the light will blind them temporarily, so they won't accept it without some kind of a fight. The question is how do you introduce them to that light as gradually and comfortably as possible. I think I might just be TOO gradual to be effective...

But that "anyone who thinks there's too much of something doesn't value that thing at all" point was pretty good. I think I'll rework that in a disarming way the next time they say that... >=)