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

431–440 of 480 posts

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#431

Post by defrost »

nec4b wrote: post #423
defrost wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of this was put in motion with a population much smaller than todays. 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.

>> All of this was put in motion with a population much smaller than todays. Your logic is circular. Because we can go all the way back to first few humans ever to exist and say they put it into motion, therefore a small group of couple of hundred of people is enough. Or go into other direction and dream what new wonders the next 40 years would bring with the rising population. >> The ongoing work being planned doesn…

There's no logic involved in stating observed fact.

Your comments, however, seem to be locked into a single world view based on the assumed neccesity for unlimited growth.

This is blinkered, to say the least .. you might care to look at any of the many alternative thoughts on this matter,

eg: https://www.amazon.com.au/Small-Beautiful-Economics-People-M...

from waaaaay back in the 1970s.

We are not talking about shrinking back to zero, I am talking about world population finding a sustainable balnce, say five or seven billion by 2300 or so.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#432

Post by CatWChainsaw »

FredPret wrote: post #258
vasco wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you can define degradation. I can make objective claims that less biodiversity is worse than more biodiversity and use it to measure degradation without humans around. I can measure this degradation in planets without humans or model out the degradation in a future where humans are extinct, and call certain situations objectively worse than others under that yardstick. Maybe I misunderstood because it seems y…

If biodiversity is good (and I say it is, but it’s a human judgement), then human civilization is also good, and for the same reason: it represents life, complexity, activity, and progress.

... sixth mass extinction??

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#433

Post by rafd »

We, as in humanity, haven't even figured out how to support the people we already have. We never have. Even without the threat of climate change, billions are under-nourished.

High tech might alleviate some issues, but the root cause could be addressed through existing social technology. For example, say we had AGI robots that could do all the work that humans do today - if owned only by rich capitalists, the quality of life for many may actually drop. But, combined with land value taxes and universal basic income, the result would likely be an increase quality of life (unless it turns out humans are willing to keep increasing population as long as the amount of aggregate suffering is below a certain level). AGI robots don't necessarily make things better. But social tech like LVT+UBI could meaningfully make things better, and, it could do it today (without the need for more "geniuses").

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#435

Post by CatWChainsaw »

btbuildem wrote: post #403

The endless-growth mindset will eventually be viewed as a mental illness. We pity hoarders, but we somehow look up to the unreasonably wealthy, even though they are eerily similar in their attitude and behaviour towards "their precious". If you look at a graph of human population over the last 1000 years [1] (and since -10000AD if you want [2]), it looks eerily like a stock market chart that has temporarily spiked be…

"eventually" will come too late.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#436

Post by stephc_int13 »

kelnos wrote: post #107
stephc_int13 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reducing population is as simple as making less babies. Not encouraging natality, large families, and reducing immigration.

I would think increasing immigration would actually achieve that better, at least when we're talking about immigration from places with worse access to education to places with better education. Better-educated people (especially women) seem to tend to have fewer babies. (Note that I'm not making a value judgment here.) And beyond that, to avoid demographic shocks, you probably do want to bring in new people from els…

We always talk about taking care of the aging population without talking about the other side of the coin, society also have to take care of the kids, the cost is somewhat ignored as those kids will turn into adults at some point, but it is still part of the chain.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#437

Post by chaostheory »

hef19898 wrote: post #412
chaostheory wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How can one look at those numbers, and take, after mixing it other issues like birth control, such a deeply wrong conclusion?

They account for socioeconomic changes like abortion and birth control ie these trends started long before the sexual revolution and long before abortion was even legal. It is not a “deeply wrong conclusion” unless no one bother to read any of it. Completely ignoring the endocrine disrupter pollution just shows you completely ignored my comment.

The key is declining male fertility

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230327-how-pollution-is...

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#438

Post by [deleted] »

mtalantikite wrote: post #407

I’m curious to know if the author has spent any significant time in any place that is going to feel the brunt of the climate catastrophe. I’d invite them to spend a couple months in Delhi or Dhaka and then take another pass at this think piece. Or maybe they’re cool with taking in a few hundred million climate refugees into the US and just didn’t mention it, as many parts of South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa wi…

[deleted]

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#439

Post by midnitewarrior »

This author is completely out of touch. Species are hopelessly in decline; climate change is causing havoc for many already. The last thing this planet needs is more consumers.

He's very hopeful about the future of a growing population and how it can create more geniuses that can save us. He points to more people finding us more Einsteins, but he neglects to acknowledge we are just as likely to find more Hitlers, antisocials, narcissists, terrorists, serial killers and school shooters as well.

Nearly everything in our modern world is made worse with more people. Our human habitat is being depleted, our healthy food sources are becoming scarce, and we scorch the land and the air to provide modern necessities to all. We go to war over resources, and our ever-growing need for energy results in a Chernobyl or Fukushima or Exxon Valdez or Gulf War far too often.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#440

Post by hef19898 »

chaostheory wrote: post #437
hef19898 wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can one look at those numbers, and take, after mixing it other issues like birth control, such a deeply wrong conclusion?

They account for socioeconomic changes like abortion and birth control ie these trends started long before the sexual revolution and long before abortion was even legal. It is not a “deeply wrong conclusion” unless no one bother to read any of it. Completely ignoring the endocrine disrupter pollution just shows you completely ignored my comment. The key is declining male fertility https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2…

I know, declining male fertility is such a nice talking point, you know men being less manly and all that.

Funny so, that while micro plastics and whatnot sure are ugly and cannot be ignored, all other studies do not mention male fertility as a root cause, but rather:

- urbanization and changes in lifestyle

- women pursuing a life other than being a mother

- birth control (the reason why birth control reduces the number of kids per couple should be obvious...)

- economic incentives change from large families (old style, labour intensive farming) to smaller families (industrial labour and office work in cities)

- Covid

source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/birthrates-declining-...

Post reply on HN