Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis • Hacker News Board

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#11

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 4:23 PM UTC

spacephysics wrote: post #10

dencodev wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an American and had a vasectomy and one of the bigger reasons was that I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. I felt like it was the biggest single contribution I could make for environmentalism. I also ride an electric bike, live in the PNW where I use barely any heat or AC, limit meat and dairy intake, and generally just don't buy stu…

And here is where environmentalism becomes anti-human, and frankly cult like. Nothing against vasectomies, I’ll probably get one once I have a few kids. But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern. Oh well, if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists. I’m all for doing our…

[deleted]

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#12

Post by jungturk » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 4:31 PM UTC

spacephysics wrote: post #10

dencodev wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an American and had a vasectomy and one of the bigger reasons was that I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. I felt like it was the biggest single contribution I could make for environmentalism. I also ride an electric bike, live in the PNW where I use barely any heat or AC, limit meat and dairy intake, and generally just don't buy stu…

And here is where environmentalism becomes anti-human, and frankly cult like. Nothing against vasectomies, I’ll probably get one once I have a few kids. But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern. Oh well, if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists. I’m all for doing our…

It's not at the expense of human life if this person's local sacrifice improves global survivability of the species (assuming some people still decide to procreate).

The parent envisions a world where the commons have been destroyed because everyone decided to pursue their self interest.

I'm not sure that's cultish - seems like calculated pragmatism about a limited resource.

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#13

Post by _y5hn » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 4:33 PM UTC

baron816 wrote: post #7

bdjsjsbdb wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that there's no future where everyone consumes as much as today's average American. You either: a) reduce the consumption of the globally wealthy (this includes most Americans) b) keep the globally impoverished poor to keep their consumption low c) add in some eugenics and stop the poor people from having more kids with the promise that one day you'll let them consume the same way you already do You're b…

Option d) technology and good government policies enables a low/no carbon future.

Certainty e) incarnate as somebody else for many lifetimes to come

Rationale: If you acknowledge you are alive and conscious reading this, why would this experience be something unique. Especially if everybody else reports the same? If not, why keep you alive?

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#14

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 4:37 PM UTC

spacephysics wrote: post #10

dencodev wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an American and had a vasectomy and one of the bigger reasons was that I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. I felt like it was the biggest single contribution I could make for environmentalism. I also ride an electric bike, live in the PNW where I use barely any heat or AC, limit meat and dairy intake, and generally just don't buy stu…

And here is where environmentalism becomes anti-human, and frankly cult like. Nothing against vasectomies, I’ll probably get one once I have a few kids. But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern. Oh well, if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists. I’m all for doing our…

[deleted]

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#15

Post by bloak » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 4:49 PM UTC

spacephysics wrote: post #10

dencodev wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an American and had a vasectomy and one of the bigger reasons was that I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. I felt like it was the biggest single contribution I could make for environmentalism. I also ride an electric bike, live in the PNW where I use barely any heat or AC, limit meat and dairy intake, and generally just don't buy stu…

And here is where environmentalism becomes anti-human, and frankly cult like. Nothing against vasectomies, I’ll probably get one once I have a few kids. But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern. Oh well, if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists. I’m all for doing our…

> if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists.

Are you suggesting that being an "extreme environmentalist" is an inherited characteristic? Presumably not, because that would be ... eccentric, so what are you suggesting?

> social pressure, if not force

In most developed countries the population is falling or would be falling if it weren't for immigration, and currently that's with a fair amount of government support for human reproduction. If most people agreed that the population should be reduced and government policy were to reflect that opinion then I think the population would continue to fall without the need for anything the slightest bit chilling or oppressive.

However, a minority political or religious movement could interfere with that.

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#16

Post by Hizonner » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

spacephysics wrote: post #10

dencodev wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an American and had a vasectomy and one of the bigger reasons was that I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. I felt like it was the biggest single contribution I could make for environmentalism. I also ride an electric bike, live in the PNW where I use barely any heat or AC, limit meat and dairy intake, and generally just don't buy stu…

And here is where environmentalism becomes anti-human, and frankly cult like. Nothing against vasectomies, I’ll probably get one once I have a few kids. But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern. Oh well, if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists. I’m all for doing our…

So, you're an example of the worst of both worlds.

Regardless of whatever small accommodations you may make, you apparently consume at a first-world level, because "all doing our part" seems to indicate that you're not doing a lot more than those around you, and for the most part we're not doing much. Presumably you want your kids to be able to do the same. You definitely don't sound like you're talking about slashing your or their consumption by say a factor of 5 or 10.

But you also want to have "a few" kids, which usually means 3 or more, which means above replacement level.

You're not just increasing the number of people; you're increasing specifically the number of high consumers.

You can't have both increasing population and increasing per-capita consumption. In fact, you can't get away with increasing either one for the long term without at least reducing the other. And in the still-longer-but-not-that-long term, there's a floor on how far you can reduce consumption and still stay alive.

So at some point you HAVE to stop increasing the population. Or not only does the surrounding world suck, but people simply start starving.

... and people who think the "demographic transition" is going to ride in and save the day are thinking pretty wishfully. It may cause a bobble. It might even get the world 100 years. But in the end, evolution keeps running. There's going to be a heritable tendency to overcome the "demographic transition" factors and reproduce anyway. If that's not artificially stopped, there's going to be a problem.

Space travel is not going to fix this either.

I'm sorry that reality seems anti-human to you, but then the universe has never been obligated to care about humans.

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#17

Post by rbecker » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

jl6 wrote: post #3

But although population growth in low-impact poorer nations has a small impact today, those peoples will one day (hopefully) be wealthy and high-impact, and at that point we’ll surely wish there weren’t so many. High-impact wealthy people definitely need to ratchet down their consumption, but why can we not also address overpopulation at the same time?

High-impact wealthy people have also already been limiting their consumption via sub-replacement fertility for at least the last half-century. The only population growth in those countries is from immigration.

It's puzzling how the article can claim that consumption at the rate of wealthy nations is unsustainable, even with their relatively small populations, then propose as the solution to raise a far larger number of people to the same levels of affluence and consumption.

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#18

Post by rbecker » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 6:28 PM UTC

bdjsjsbdb wrote: post #4

jl6 wrote: post #3

But although population growth in low-impact poorer nations has a small impact today, those peoples will one day (hopefully) be wealthy and high-impact, and at that point we’ll surely wish there weren’t so many. High-impact wealthy people definitely need to ratchet down their consumption, but why can we not also address overpopulation at the same time?

The point is that there's no future where everyone consumes as much as today's average American. You either: a) reduce the consumption of the globally wealthy (this includes most Americans) b) keep the globally impoverished poor to keep their consumption low c) add in some eugenics and stop the poor people from having more kids with the promise that one day you'll let them consume the same way you already do You're b…

d) Limit immigration, thus reducing the population (and, according to some, economic growth) of the globally wealthy, that are almost without exception at sub-replacement fertility. No eugenics required.

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#19

Post by bloak » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 6:36 PM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #5

jl6 wrote: post #3

But although population growth in low-impact poorer nations has a small impact today, those peoples will one day (hopefully) be wealthy and high-impact, and at that point we’ll surely wish there weren’t so many. High-impact wealthy people definitely need to ratchet down their consumption, but why can we not also address overpopulation at the same time?

Overpopulation is not an issue. In practice, the most effective route to limiting population growth has been shown to be making people rich.

I think it's education and urbanisation that most directly reduce the population growth. Those are linked to people getting richer.

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#20

Post by bobthepanda » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 6:46 PM UTC

rbecker wrote: post #18

bdjsjsbdb wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that there's no future where everyone consumes as much as today's average American. You either: a) reduce the consumption of the globally wealthy (this includes most Americans) b) keep the globally impoverished poor to keep their consumption low c) add in some eugenics and stop the poor people from having more kids with the promise that one day you'll let them consume the same way you already do You're b…

d) Limit immigration, thus reducing the population (and, according to some, economic growth) of the globally wealthy, that are almost without exception at sub-replacement fertility. No eugenics required.

Most of the nightmarish consumption growth is not from immigration but from formerly developing countries achieving lifestyles and consumption habits similar to developed ones. 3 billion Chinese, Indians, etc. are more than happy to consume large amounts of meat, dairy and drive cars to their AC-controlled homes and jobs without immigrating.