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

321–330 of 480 posts

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#321

Post by pixl97 »

Sammi wrote: post #286
defrost wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cures both the water crisis and climate crisis while also allowing unlimited population growth with increased consumption expectations across the planet? Riiiiight.

Why not? Both water shortage and greenhouse gas emissions are because of our lacking energy technology. Get better energy tech and we solve both. Go modern nuclear.

This depends what you mean by 'solutions'. Burning resources of the planet is not a solution, it's a delay tactic that is only buying you time. Nuclear has it's own host of problems, even the modern ones.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#322

Post by naasking »

jaysonelliot wrote: post #317

This is an absolutely terrifying perspective. The planet can realistically support about one billion human beings. It was only the Haber–Bosch process in the early 1900s that made it possible to grow enough food to maintain the 8 billion humans we have today. At the time, it seemed like an incredible humanitarian advance, feeding so many more people than before, and providing higher profits for farmers, boosting the…

This idea that we should depopulate is the terrifying perspective. People have been crying that the sky is falling since Malthus, and they've always been wrong. There is no "saving the planet as we know it now". The planet is ever-changing, and has never been static.

There are certainly dangers to the path we're on that we have to mitigate, but depopulation is not one of the solutions.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#323

Post by naasking »

pixl97 wrote: post #321
Sammi wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? Both water shortage and greenhouse gas emissions are because of our lacking energy technology. Get better energy tech and we solve both. Go modern nuclear.

This depends what you mean by 'solutions'. Burning resources of the planet is not a solution, it's a delay tactic that is only buying you time. Nuclear has it's own host of problems, even the modern ones.

The problems of nuclear are dramatically overblown, particularly nuclear waste.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#324

Post by naasking »

defrost wrote: post #246
dash2 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no weight at all is given to the downsides of truly challenging levels of resource extraction currently at play to meet the high consumption demands of a small proportion of the large population we already have on the planet. Those arguments are addressed in the second paragraph: > Historically, as we run out of a resource (whale oil, elephant tusks, seabird guano), we transition to a new technology based on a more…

Not addressed well or at depth. The current pressures global populations face due to water access and increased insulation in the atmosphere are not ones that can be magically waved away by technology in short order as population increases and increases the scale of those issues. Of course there are other challenges, but those two suffice for now.

> The current pressures global populations face due to water access

Nearly unlimited water access only requires cheaper energy (desalination and condensers).

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#325

Post by zoklet-enjoyer »

naasking wrote: post #322
jaysonelliot wrote: post #317

This is an absolutely terrifying perspective. The planet can realistically support about one billion human beings. It was only the Haber–Bosch process in the early 1900s that made it possible to grow enough food to maintain the 8 billion humans we have today. At the time, it seemed like an incredible humanitarian advance, feeding so many more people than before, and providing higher profits for farmers, boosting the…

This idea that we should depopulate is the terrifying perspective. People have been crying that the sky is falling since Malthus, and they've always been wrong. There is no "saving the planet as we know it now". The planet is ever-changing, and has never been static. There are certainly dangers to the path we're on that we have to mitigate, but depopulation is not one of the solutions.

You can encourage lower reproduction with tax incentives. Nothing wrong with that.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#326

Post by lukas099 »

dave4420 wrote: post #219
synecdoche wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about providing concrete methods for reducing population? Exactly how do you propose to reduce population and who should be forced to not have children first? Should we assume that you will lead by example?

The global population is projected to go down to 6 billion by the end of the century, without any coercion or policy changes. This drives people like the author of the article mad, because they think we should do something to prevent that.

> The global population is projected to go down to 6 billion by the end of the century

Source? I thought it was expected to stabilize around 10B or so

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#327

Post by zoklet-enjoyer »

dotancohen wrote: post #304
pseudocomposer wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should anyone be forced not to have kids? We could all have one and the population would halve in a generation.

I have three children, not unusual for my culture. My community's gardener has 14 children, low for his culture but he's still young. He's only on his second wife and he just passed 40 years old. Are you going to tell him that he needs to change his culture? Arguably he could have a lot to say about our culture spewing out hydrocarbons being damaging to the planet, which would be justified far before we criticise his…

Yes, he should change his culture. We should too. Why is it taboo to tell people that their cultural values are wrong?

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#328

Post by menacingly »

naasking wrote: post #322
jaysonelliot wrote: post #317

This is an absolutely terrifying perspective. The planet can realistically support about one billion human beings. It was only the Haber–Bosch process in the early 1900s that made it possible to grow enough food to maintain the 8 billion humans we have today. At the time, it seemed like an incredible humanitarian advance, feeding so many more people than before, and providing higher profits for farmers, boosting the…

This idea that we should depopulate is the terrifying perspective. People have been crying that the sky is falling since Malthus, and they've always been wrong. There is no "saving the planet as we know it now". The planet is ever-changing, and has never been static. There are certainly dangers to the path we're on that we have to mitigate, but depopulation is not one of the solutions.

depop is fine as long as we start with the depops

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#329

Post by naasking »

zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #325
naasking wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea that we should depopulate is the terrifying perspective. People have been crying that the sky is falling since Malthus, and they've always been wrong. There is no "saving the planet as we know it now". The planet is ever-changing, and has never been static. There are certainly dangers to the path we're on that we have to mitigate, but depopulation is not one of the solutions.

You can encourage lower reproduction with tax incentives. Nothing wrong with that.

We don't need to encourage it, birth control and capitalism have already produced a depopulation trend in all developed countries. It's not a good thing.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#330

Post by 0xfaded »

naasking wrote: post #322
jaysonelliot wrote: post #317

This is an absolutely terrifying perspective. The planet can realistically support about one billion human beings. It was only the Haber–Bosch process in the early 1900s that made it possible to grow enough food to maintain the 8 billion humans we have today. At the time, it seemed like an incredible humanitarian advance, feeding so many more people than before, and providing higher profits for farmers, boosting the…

This idea that we should depopulate is the terrifying perspective. People have been crying that the sky is falling since Malthus, and they've always been wrong. There is no "saving the planet as we know it now". The planet is ever-changing, and has never been static. There are certainly dangers to the path we're on that we have to mitigate, but depopulation is not one of the solutions.

This argument is equating human perspectives of the world to physical realities.

Ancient populations certainly left their mask, Romans deforested Europe for the sake of glass making. But that is nothing compared to the resource extraction and ndustrial waste that support the world 9 billion people.

Willing it away with "the sky has always been falling" is denialism at best.

Post reply on HN