Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mount Everest is visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory

snowbrains.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 283 posts

Re: Mount Everest is visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory

#31

Post by torwayburger »

baddox wrote: post #24
mmaunder wrote: post #9

This is why we need less humans on this planet. No one says that, because having as many kids as you like seems to be considered a basic human right. But imagine Earth with a stable 10% of our current population. Clean, abundant, and without the catastrophic extinction event already underway.

There’s a very real chance that strategy would significantly increase the likelihood of human extinction in the medium to distant future. We need minds to solve problems. Of course, that’s not to say that it’s impossible to have too many people, or even that decreasing the likelihood of human extinction is necessarily one of the most important goals.

Sure - could it equally be argued that minds created the problems we need minds to solve? Seems circular.

Re: Mount Everest is visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory

#33

Post by hoorayimhelping »

mmaunder wrote: post #9

This is why we need less humans on this planet. No one says that, because having as many kids as you like seems to be considered a basic human right. But imagine Earth with a stable 10% of our current population. Clean, abundant, and without the catastrophic extinction event already underway.

>No one says that

Why do people who say we need fewer humans on the planet always say, "no one says this?"

Literally every discussion about population, pollution, global warming, fusion, farming, or social sciences has some thread where someone says, "there are too many people and no one is talking about it." It's getting tiring reading this martyrdom, and I generally tend to agree with the viewpoint.

But this is not some edgy take. The most populous country on earth enacted policies that seem to support this idea in the 70s.

Re: Mount Everest is visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory

#34

Post by mmaunder »

nitrogen wrote: post #18
gonzo41 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're taking steps and not having children then?

A case can also be made that those who want the least children for sustainability reasons should try to have more children who grow up to make a compounding difference in the future.

So it’s ok to have 10 kids because they’ll be smarter than you are and make the right choice?

So 10 to the power of how many generations would that be exactly?

Re: Mount Everest is visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory

#35

Post by naringas »

mmaunder wrote: post #9

This is why we need less humans on this planet. No one says that, because having as many kids as you like seems to be considered a basic human right. But imagine Earth with a stable 10% of our current population. Clean, abundant, and without the catastrophic extinction event already underway.

Why 10%?

Why not 5%? or 25%?

Also, how would you chose who gets to stay?

In any case I find it quite hard to justify a reduction of population based on being able to have better sights

Re: Mount Everest is visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory

#36

Post by dragosmocrii »

gonzo41 wrote: post #12
mmaunder wrote: post #9

This is why we need less humans on this planet. No one says that, because having as many kids as you like seems to be considered a basic human right. But imagine Earth with a stable 10% of our current population. Clean, abundant, and without the catastrophic extinction event already underway.

So you're taking steps and not having children then?

See my comment one level up. If you're having 2 children, you're already helping. If no one's having kids at all then we'd go extinct lol

Re: Mount Everest is visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory

#37

Post by brtkdotse »

mmaunder wrote: post #9

This is why we need less humans on this planet. No one says that, because having as many kids as you like seems to be considered a basic human right. But imagine Earth with a stable 10% of our current population. Clean, abundant, and without the catastrophic extinction event already underway.

Up until less than a hundred years ago the only way to make sure any of your kids survived was to have seven or eight of them. This has change dramatically in the developed countries and is on the way every else as well as standards of living increase.

Child births need to be at around 2.1 per woman if the population is to remain constant. Right now most developed countries are way below that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and...

Re: Mount Everest is visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory

#38

Post by catalogia »

mvid wrote: post #7
chipperyman573 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly a severe reduction in air travel (airplane fuel is really really really bad for the environment)

Unlikely. Usually mostly due to agricultural burning and motor vehicles.

Road vehicles and agricultural vehicles have both been using ULSD for the past 10 or so years in America, and it's my impression that this is common elsewhere in the developed world too. ULSD has two orders of magnitude less sulfur than common jet fuel.

Re: Mount Everest is visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory

#40

Post by seanwilson »

mmaunder wrote: post #9

This is why we need less humans on this planet. No one says that, because having as many kids as you like seems to be considered a basic human right. But imagine Earth with a stable 10% of our current population. Clean, abundant, and without the catastrophic extinction event already underway.

If you view 7.5 billion humans as being too many people, what are your views on the 70 billion farm animals we have?
Post reply on HN