Live data from Hacker News

Jane Goodall has died

latimes.com

201–206 of 206 posts

Re: Jane Goodall has died

#201
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, in the intermediate stage, you are desperately short of working-age people to help support the massive aging population. This isn't a theoretical - most of Western Europe has been in this boat for a long time, and relies heavily on immigration to fill the labour gap (despite however much political posturing about wanting to restrict immigration) If we do this on a global scale, there is nowhere to draw immig…

What's the alternative though? Creating new humans purely to be able to have them work and pay for stuff for other existing humans? That doesn't seem a bit dystopian for you? The problem I have with this logic is that it seems to assume a binary of the population either staying at least as high as it is or massively reducing. The idea that there's no middle ground where the population goes down slowly rather than mas…

Oh, for sure, that alternative is not great either. We've built a society on the myth that infinite growth is possible, and at some point the chickens are coming home to roost...

Re: Jane Goodall has died

#202
post #184
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

misled

thanks I probably misspell that one a lot

You're not alone ... the whole world has forgotten how to spell "led" ever since spell checkers came into existence. It's a pet peeve and a common error, making its way even into the most prestigious publications.

Re: Jane Goodall has died

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a very simple metric, called "fertility rate". It is the average number of children born per woman over her entire lifetime. Since the male/female ratio in humans is nearly 1:1, she has to have 2 children (one to replace herself, one for the corresponding man) plus a tiny bit of extra... usually said to be about 2.1 children. If she has fewer than that, population is shrinking, each generation is smaller tha…

> It's how humans become extinct. Don’t you think it’s likely more of a pendulum? Maybe the equilibrium is 5-7 billion, and there are times when people have more kids, and times of fewer. Even if we drop to 3 billion, the world would find ways to go on, likely implementing policies that make big families more favorable again.

>Don’t you think it’s likely more of a pendulum?

No. For it to be a pendulum, it would have to be true that some little girl, herself the only child from a long line of only-children, who grows up in a society where people have only one child or more likely no children, all her role models being childless... her school teachers, celebrities, everyone she's heard of, that little girl would grow up and say "I want to be a mommy and have 5/8/12 kids!" And that's so absurd I don't know why you'd even ask.

Nor is it likely, as many of those with unearned optimism believe, that some "high fertility families" can just outbreed everyone and come out the other side of this. Their children become indoctrinated faster than they can have them... the Duggars aren't on track for 400 (20x20) grandchildren. Insularity doesn't help, the Amish only survive with their lifestyle as long as our lifestyle exists... it requires too much technology that they buy from us. They either would need to change and become like us, or revert to technology from centuries before after which their fertility plummets.

>Maybe the equilibrium is 5-7 billion,

What's the life expectancy in China? Find that number, n. In that many years, China's population will be less than half what it is today. Much less. You have no intuitive sense of the math here. The current generation being born will live until that life expectancy number, then die (on average). So the current generation being born right now will evaporate in that number of years... but the generation they'll start giving birth to in about 25 years, it will be only half the size. The older generations, almost all of those will be dead in n years, since they're way past life expectancy.

It's fucking bleak.

>Even if we drop to 3 billion, the world would find ways to go on, likely implementing policies that make big families more favorable again.

There are no policies that can incentivize this that are also affordable. How much do you think you'd need to bribe someone who calls themselves "childfree" to have children? Sure, everyone has a price. Is that $1mil, or $1bil? And sure, the US government can afford even the $1bil number. But the United States can't afford $1bil times the 500,000 births we need next year. And if the US can't afford it, how the fuck will Portugal or Taiwan or Australia afford it?

It's not that you're thinking unclearly about this. It's that you haven't thought about it at all. Because no one's ever rang the alarm bell. And why haven't they? They keep telling you that it's no big deal. This is human extinction.

Re: Jane Goodall has died

#204
post #92

If you find Jane Goodall inspirational, you may be delighted to learn about Anne Innis Dagg [0], whose studies of wild giraffe predates Goodall's study of chimps. The documentary "The Woman Who Loves Giraffes" [1] is fantastic and has 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. The reason you might not know Dagg's name is essentially that she was denied tenure for being a woman. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Innis_Dagg [1] htt…

Jane Goodall did not have tenure

Re: Jane Goodall has died

#205
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the alternative though? Creating new humans purely to be able to have them work and pay for stuff for other existing humans? That doesn't seem a bit dystopian for you? The problem I have with this logic is that it seems to assume a binary of the population either staying at least as high as it is or massively reducing. The idea that there's no middle ground where the population goes down slowly rather than mas…

Oh, for sure, that alternative is not great either. We've built a society on the myth that infinite growth is possible, and at some point the chickens are coming home to roost...

I guess the question is just whether we want to be the generation that decides to try to do something about this problem or let it keep going on for a later generation to solve. Either way, we won't be the ones who actually are around when the pain starts to be felt, and it's not like as individuals we can do a whole lot about it anyhow. My wife and I have no interest in having kids, so I guess we're doing as much as we can, although our decision is pretty much completely unrelated to any opinions about population I might have.
Post reply on HN