411–420 of 480 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depopolating is just another word for genocid, that's why it is terrifying. Or at least should br, but then some people are just too edgy to get that.
Wouldn't most of the so-called "West" already be in the process of depopulation, based on current birthrates, if not for immigration from other regions?
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.
It’s not terrifying because it has been happening since the 1950s. One theory is that as countries industrialize, their males become less fertile over subsequent generations. (This theory accounts for socioeconomic changes like abortion and being too poor to afford children.) It’s not too surprising given chemicals like BPA aka synthetic estrogen is so pervasive that now it’s in clothes and paper receipts. Almost no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a Delta flight that is flying exclusively for the pleasure of a tiny group of people who want to watch the eclipse for multiple hours https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39447603 The concept that we’re resource constrained to the extent that we’re beyond the carrying capacity of the world is beyond ridiculous We have a greed, fear and distribution problem, not a production problem Nobody needs a Ferrari when…
What did you mean by “that’s all it takes”?
I helped my friend J get out of the woods two years ago, and I’m currently working with my new friends “R” and “M” and “D” (not going to out them) to get them permanent housing or vehicles.
All from just a simple conversation seeing how they were living and taking them through what they need to get back on their feet.
More ambitious projects need a certain critical mass of resources behind them. Ancient Egyptian civilization built a large irrigation system to make the best use of the Nile floodwaters for agriculture, a feat that would not have been possible to a small tribe or chiefdom. This doesn't mean people, we're no longer bound by labour intensive solutions. I live in a single state with a tiny population that mines and ship…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>Are you going to tell him that he needs to change his culture If you're going to life a modern lifestyle, yes 100%. Modern human lifestyles are hyper energy/resource intensive. The reason people had 14 kids back when is 1. most of the kids died, and 2, the kids were work resources. If 1 and 2 no longer hold, then yea, change.
Although, in this supposed gardener’s culture, one guy had multiple wives, and that is obviously not a dynamic that leads to a steady, peaceful society based on all the prevailing customs around the world.
The human world survived just fine when there was 1% of the current population.
The whole idea that we "can't afford to take care of so many old people" is premised on the assumption that Elon and Bozo need 2/3 of the world's economic output, and the other 1/3 should be spent bombing each other.
The idea that the consumption/person is declining is also bullshit. As 3rd world countries see how 1st world populations are living, they also want these opulent lifestyles.
The physical world (you know, the one that "might be a simulation" and is ignored in favor of twerk tic and fortnight) cannot support the world's 3rd world residents going through the same consumption bender that the 1st world has gone through in the last 50-100 years.
We need to stop breeding people, just like we need to stop breeding dogs and cows...
In 100 years when the population is back below 1 billion, then we can worry about under-population...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They cannot be utilized because they live in shitty conditions created by the too large population we already have. Or they just live in a shitty place under some autocratic/dictator/religious rule. I'm not sure that has much to do with the population size.
Don't you think those bad leaders would've had a harder time coming into power if there had been less contention over resources? If it's clear that there's plenty to go around you can just abandon a bad leader. If not, then maybe tolerating them is a necessary evil (because they control the food).
> If it's clear that there's plenty to go around you can just abandon a bad leader.
If only it were that easy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if the population suddenly stabilised overnight mining automation would continue to increase in order to meet the rising per capita demand from global population. It's already rising to meet the transition from fossil fuel energy to other sources. We are living in a world where 60+ year olds like myself increased per capita throughput in exploration, extraction, processing and production. Much of this creative a…
None of what you said would be possible with a dwindling population. We do not live in a Star trek utopia where at press of a button every wish is synthesized by a machine. More people can simply get more done. There is a good reason why most of the stuff, new discoveries and technologies come from big countries and not from small ones. Even rich countries per capita with small population size do not build huge infra…
The bulk of it was achieved with a population smaller than todays.
The ongoing work being planned doesn't require the population to grow, there is demand enough from a growing proportion wanting a greater standard of living and a world making a massive transition in base energy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't you think those bad leaders would've had a harder time coming into power if there had been less contention over resources? If it's clear that there's plenty to go around you can just abandon a bad leader. If not, then maybe tolerating them is a necessary evil (because they control the food).
We have an abundance of resources, and ship things like food and medicine all over the world. But because of shitty leaders access is the issue. So the only way to address the issue is to get more resources sourced locally. > If it's clear that there's plenty to go around you can just abandon a bad leader. If only it were that easy.
I don't know about "only", but I agree that that's the best move: Fewer labyrinthine dependencies, more providing directly for yourself and your neighbors.
But isn't the difficulty of that proposition a direct function of population density? If "locally" means 1000 people on 100 acres, that's a lot different than if "locally" means 10000 people on 10 acres.
---
To put it differently, premises:
1. The planet can sustain 100M of us
2. The planet cannot sustain 100B of us
3. There is uncertainty about whether the planet can sustain 8B of us
Conclusion:
The safer direction for our population to go is down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?