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

Selfish reasons to want more humans

rootsofprogress.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 480 posts

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#271

Post by kiba »

em-bee wrote: post #201
kiba wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matters in the universe is a lot. Ditto the amount of energy. People may argue that unlimited growth is unsustainable, and I agree. But what people don't realize is just...how much resources there is and how much just sits there being wasted by being radiated and hitting inert rocks and gases. The problem is not resource availability(of which they are abundant and uselessly radiating out), or even engineering or econ…

there are so many good comments like this one that are being downvoted without any explanation why. what is wrong with this argument? there was an article (on HN even i think) some time ago that showed how big of an area of solar panels we would need to place in the sahara desert to solve the worlds energy problems. it was tiny compared to the whole area of the desert. sure, there is still a problem of distribution,…

the space problem is a bit different. we probably don't want to turn the whole planet into high density housing, even if we could energy wise, but the only thing getting in the way of solving the problems we have is politics as in unwillingness to cooperate for the greater benefit of the world instead of for selfish reasons.

People don't have a good grasp on the space issue because they hadn't play with the math, or investigated our terribly inefficient and often ugly land usage pattern.

When I think of space, I think about acrologies, hardly high density dystopian hellscape. We would realistically construct them over time in module instead of trying to do monolithic designs that I often see proposed.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#272

Post by savingsPossible »

sokoloff wrote: post #223
collyw wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealthy families mean you are able to take risks with your ideas, while the rest of us need to play it safer if we want to pay our rent.

Is there any possible correlation between high rents and high population?

Possible, but you'd still have to prove it.

After all, buildings and higher density is possible, transit is possible.

Where I live (sao paulo) there are many people on the streets. However, there is housing for all of them. That just lies empty. For speculation and seeking higher rents. For airbnb and skirting renters protection laws.

We don't have too much people, we have capital that is too accumulated at the top and that expects too high returns

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#273

Post by sokoloff »

em-bee wrote: post #265
sokoloff wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with the last paragraph. If there are four factors that all combine to create an outcome, we don’t ignore factor 1 just because factors 2-4 can nullify any advantage. My garden grows based on light, CO2, macro nutrients, and water. We don’t say “CO2 is not a factor in plant growth because deficits in water, nutrients, and light can prevent it from showing in overall outcome.”

but that depends on how large the factor actually is. if it were 10% or more, then sure. but the fact that the very existence of a genetic factor is put into question, suggests that the factor, if it exists, is so small that it really is negligible. another reason why we can ignore a genetic factor is that we can not influence it. or, that trying to influence it carries serious ethical implications. it is also to sma…

The existence of a genetic component is put into question by some, but by no means all.

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

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#274

Post by usrusr »

arbitrary_name wrote: post #96
wonderwonder wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who gets to decide who can reproduce and who cant?

No one has to decide. It's as simple as not actively encouraging unsustainable growth and letting people choose. No one is advocating forcing anything on anyone.

Unfortunately, this is not the end game yet. The end game is "breeder tribe" subcultures who raise their children to reject the idea that that two or three children might be enough. Those subcultures will be immune to change as long as there is still enough "them" around for "us vs them" to keep "we're the ones with the children" a core of their identity.

I write "subculture", because they exist in many different cultures. Perhaps literally everywhere where voluntary low birth rate happens at all. (I don't know of a breeder subculture in Japan, but I'd be surprised if it did not exist. We certainly do have them here in Germany, and they scare the shit out of regular people in the rural regions they colonize, with their "everything Nazi except the Hakenkreuz")

Back to end game: the current set of what people consider human rights ("have children and raise them however you like") seems to make it inevitable that those subcultures thrive until they aren't sub anymore. Participate in the breeding race or you're out. It's almost as if back when they declared human rights they accidentally enshrined the very foundation of Nazi ideology when they tried to keep that from happening ever again.

But then on the other hand, the actual text of the declaration makes very little mention of procreation. All those who cry "but human rights!" whenever the topic comes up seem to base their argument on (or be mislead by, I guess most seem to assume that it's a straight forward article resembling "go forth and multiply", I know I did before looking it up). I'd love to see some discussion of de-sanctifying the presumed right to "sire and ideologize an army" (I wish I was exaggerating..) before things get so ugly that the discussion will include radical swings of the pendulum to the other side. Perhaps a viable diplomatic approach could be more explicit protection for the first two children, and in exchange less article 26.3 beyond that threshold? We certainly should not try to actively solve breeder subcultures, but we should give them less to hide behind.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#275

Post by savingsPossible »

dash2 wrote: post #242
AstralStorm wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true only to some degree, there are always limits to growth. These limits are actually very far away, most of the trouble is caused by the funny rationing/commons depletion system we call capitalism. The predicted 10-12 billion humans should have more than enough everything. We don't because capital and access are rationed.

This is such a weird take because every other system except capitalism did not produce enough resources to let there be 8 bn people, and capitalism did produce them and also made the people vastly richer than the 1 bn there were before.

We're (as in humanity) still trying 'domesticated capitalism' for example in china. There are alternatives to laissez-faire, the current (bad) state of affairs is part of a trend for laissez-faire starting in the 70s.

We do need innovation in tech, and in supply chains, and in products, and for that capitalism is wonderful

We do not need innovation in how to ignore labour laws (uber) renters protections (airbnb). We do not need lower marginal top tax rates, and accumulation in the 1%.

We also need innovation in how to stop runaway capitalist cycles (and, again, I am hoping western democracies will learn from china how to do that before it is too late)

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#277

Post by savingsPossible »

throwaway047278 wrote: post #192
vunderba wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it certainly does not. Obviously, a higher socioeconomic background means increased resources and dedicated attention to education which certainly helps, but genius, in the true sense of the word needs a good starting foundation, and that probably has a significant genetic component. Nikola Tesla, Einstein, Ramanujan were all child prodigies without exceptional access to tutors and other educational resources. If…

Einstein actually did have a tutor (Max Talmey). Any access to tutors at the time was exceptional, as the majority of families could not afford that. Einstein was also raised in a family that can not be described as average. His father had an interest in mathematics and founded 2 electrical engineering companies His mother was well-educated and worked as a piano player. She made Albert begin violin lessons at the age…

> His father had an interest in mathematics and founded 2 electrical engineering companies

I am not saying that you are wrong, but this might not be evidence for a 'nurture' hypothesis as opposed to a 'nature' one.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#278

Post by savingsPossible »

em-bee wrote: post #172
stephc_int13 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not. There is a part of genetics, like most things, but if you look at past geniuses, there is a common pattern, wealthy enough families able to afford tutors. Tutoring is what makes geniuses, not lottery.

exactly this. the potential of humanity is largely underutilized. the reason we need geniuses now is because our current way of teaching is not enabling peoples potential as well as it could. it doesn't even take individual tutoring. better teaching methods such as montessori, project based learning, smaller groups (say a 10 to 1 ratio in class compared to the 50 to 1 ratio i see in china and other countries i have v…

research is mixed about small class sizes (maybe 1 in 10 as you said, on 1 in 5, would be beneficial but there is very little difference between 1 in 20 and 1 in 50). Not a rebuttal, just adding some info

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#279

Post by silvestrov »

sebmellen wrote: post #257
silvestrov wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "more people" was always better then India and Africa should be much richer than Europe. A lack of people can be an innovation driver: "hiring people is too expensive, so we have to automate everything", i.e. innovation is a must for survival.

Your reasoning is just historically uninformed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio... . There are at least a few generations of lag time between a population boom and economic effects, but Europe's former population size (and density) was the key to its current prosperity. France would likely be more populous and therefore richer than Germany, had it not secularized earlier and thereby reduce…

Your first link is for 1900 but that is way too recent to explain why some contries got rich in the industrial revolution.

It also has British Empire as #1, but this includes India. On its own Britain was much smaller.

When you seperate "overseas territories" out, then you are still left with Asia (incl India) as #1

Where did industrial revolution start? In Britain or in India?

On this page you can go back to 1700 and see that Europe was way down the list: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1006557/global-populatio...

So your own method of arguing leads to the opposite result than your conclusion.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#280

Post by hilbert42 »

usrusr wrote: post #237
hilbert42 wrote: post #127

"One argument for a larger population is based on utilitarianism, specifically the version of it that says that what is good is the sum total of happiness across all humans." Utilitarianism doesn't say that 'good is the sum total of happiness across all humans' but rather it says it's 'the greatest good for the greatest number', which is substantially different, so this is a distortion of the facts. I would refer the…

I think your last paragraph sums up the article very well. One question remainins: did the author succeed in convincing himself? It's a fluff piece based on naming a few patterns that could be used as arguments for more humans, not an exploration of the problem space. For example he does not even mention that one pattern that has accompanied humanity through all of history: population control through war. When it's t…

I'd suggest the answer to the question you posed is likely 'yes'. The points the author raises under More options tells me much about the person he is and I've encountered his type before and they think like that.

As I said I don't see much point in discussing population as much as I'd like to. With the world as it is, it's easy to be disparaging against those who argue for a larger population and that we'll always find or develop more resources but it serves no purpose when those who are in favor hold those views as beliefs rather than having arrived at them objectively.

We shouldn't forget there's long social and religious traditions concerning fecundity and 'go forth and multiply', and these beliefs are deeply ingrained in much of the population. Also, one has to be heartless not to feel very sorry for a grieving couple who've been told by an IVF clinic they can't have any children even if that would benefit the planet. Much of the world's population see the biological urge to multiply as normal and fundamental so it's understandable why those who question the doctrine such as Paul Ehrlich and Jane Goodall have been verbally pilloried over the years. Their message is repugnant even if correct.

That said, we need the discussion and we need to listen to Ehrlich et al but it's not going to happen for reasons stated. What I find most disconcerting and hypocritical are environmentalists and groups like Greenpeace arguing about pollution, limited resources and environmental issues whilst they blatantly ignore the population 'elephant'. When asked why they've been known to say "it's too hot handle, we wouldn't touch it with a barge pole."

I'd like to discuss your point about population control through war as history of warfare is an interest of mine but it's too big to post here.

Post reply on HN