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

The world has probably passed peak pollution

sustainabilitybynumbers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 383 posts

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#11

Post by silverquiet »

monero-xmr wrote: post #6
Animats wrote: post #2

That's encouraging. - Peak pollution - check. - Peak coal - not yet. - Peak oil - maybe 2019, but aftermath of COVID affects numbers.[1] - Peak baby - 2013. [2] [1] https://www.resilience.org/stories/2023-04-19/the-status-of-... [2] https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/life/2022/11/12/the-stats-guy...

My problem with the “peak population” hypothesis is that all of the non-breeders will eliminate themselves from the gene pool soon. All of us that have kids for whatever reason chose to reproduce despite the abundance of modern society. Also the groups that have many kids (the Amish have 7 children on average, and you also have Mormons and Orthodox Jews) will expand exponentially.

If the future is agrarian, extremely-religious people living a very low-productivity lifestyle of essentially subsistence farming, then that’s probably actually a nice balance for the Earth and humanity. However it really doesn’t feel like that’s where things are headed in spite of the current demographic trends you note. In a sense, I think that’s the way the Americas were before Columbus re-united them with the old world.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#12

Post by monero-xmr »

developerDan wrote: post #10
monero-xmr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with the “peak population” hypothesis is that all of the non-breeders will eliminate themselves from the gene pool soon. All of us that have kids for whatever reason chose to reproduce despite the abundance of modern society. Also the groups that have many kids (the Amish have 7 children on average, and you also have Mormons and Orthodox Jews) will expand exponentially.

Who is to say children today will have children of their own tomorrow? People who are choosing not to have kids “leaving the gene pool” (you say it as if they are some filth to be done away with) doesn’t change anything.

If you don’t reproduce then your genes are not passed on. You have self-selected not to be part of the human race any longer.

My hunch is that the people who still decide to reproduce, despite all the reasons people who advocate for not having children talk about, likely have some sort of genetic predisposition for reproduction - a strong innate need.

After all the non-breeders die off, the future belongs to the reproducers.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#13

Post by skissane »

monero-xmr wrote: post #6
Animats wrote: post #2

That's encouraging. - Peak pollution - check. - Peak coal - not yet. - Peak oil - maybe 2019, but aftermath of COVID affects numbers.[1] - Peak baby - 2013. [2] [1] https://www.resilience.org/stories/2023-04-19/the-status-of-... [2] https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/life/2022/11/12/the-stats-guy...

My problem with the “peak population” hypothesis is that all of the non-breeders will eliminate themselves from the gene pool soon. All of us that have kids for whatever reason chose to reproduce despite the abundance of modern society. Also the groups that have many kids (the Amish have 7 children on average, and you also have Mormons and Orthodox Jews) will expand exponentially.

> Also the groups that have many kids (the Amish have 7 children on average, and you also have Mormons and Orthodox Jews) will expand exponentially

I agree with your overall point, and about the Amish and Orthodox Jews (especially the ultra-Orthodox, Hasidic/Haredi).

However, for Mormons, I'm not sure that is true. Mormons, in the US at least, have plummeting fertility rates, and also a lot of problems with retaining their younger members. They don't belong to the same category as Amish and ultra-Orthodox do, they are converging to the American secular mainstream while those groups remain on a clearly different trajectory from it.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#14

Post by monero-xmr »

skissane wrote: post #13
monero-xmr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with the “peak population” hypothesis is that all of the non-breeders will eliminate themselves from the gene pool soon. All of us that have kids for whatever reason chose to reproduce despite the abundance of modern society. Also the groups that have many kids (the Amish have 7 children on average, and you also have Mormons and Orthodox Jews) will expand exponentially.

> Also the groups that have many kids (the Amish have 7 children on average, and you also have Mormons and Orthodox Jews) will expand exponentially I agree with your overall point, and about the Amish and Orthodox Jews (especially the ultra-Orthodox, Hasidic/Haredi). However, for Mormons, I'm not sure that is true. Mormons, in the US at least, have plummeting fertility rates, and also a lot of problems with retaining…

It’s also possible that secular society creates effective off-ramps to convert the hyper-religious to secular values. I’m uncertain if this will work given how successful the in-group remains despite the internet and modern social media.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#15

Post by [deleted] »

monero-xmr wrote: post #12
developerDan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is to say children today will have children of their own tomorrow? People who are choosing not to have kids “leaving the gene pool” (you say it as if they are some filth to be done away with) doesn’t change anything.

If you don’t reproduce then your genes are not passed on. You have self-selected not to be part of the human race any longer. My hunch is that the people who still decide to reproduce, despite all the reasons people who advocate for not having children talk about, likely have some sort of genetic predisposition for reproduction - a strong innate need. After all the non-breeders die off, the future belongs to the repr…

[deleted]

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#16

Post by Apocryphon »

monero-xmr wrote: post #14
skissane wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also the groups that have many kids (the Amish have 7 children on average, and you also have Mormons and Orthodox Jews) will expand exponentially I agree with your overall point, and about the Amish and Orthodox Jews (especially the ultra-Orthodox, Hasidic/Haredi). However, for Mormons, I'm not sure that is true. Mormons, in the US at least, have plummeting fertility rates, and also a lot of problems with retaining…

It’s also possible that secular society creates effective off-ramps to convert the hyper-religious to secular values. I’m uncertain if this will work given how successful the in-group remains despite the internet and modern social media.

Too early to tell. Wait a couple more generations.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#17

Post by iiovemiku »

monero-xmr wrote: post #6
Animats wrote: post #2

That's encouraging. - Peak pollution - check. - Peak coal - not yet. - Peak oil - maybe 2019, but aftermath of COVID affects numbers.[1] - Peak baby - 2013. [2] [1] https://www.resilience.org/stories/2023-04-19/the-status-of-... [2] https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/life/2022/11/12/the-stats-guy...

My problem with the “peak population” hypothesis is that all of the non-breeders will eliminate themselves from the gene pool soon. All of us that have kids for whatever reason chose to reproduce despite the abundance of modern society. Also the groups that have many kids (the Amish have 7 children on average, and you also have Mormons and Orthodox Jews) will expand exponentially.

From my perspective, the only reason they are resistant to societal factors that drive people to have less kids is that their strong religious values (which are held together by their strong communities). So this really begs the question of what society will look like if the only people who will be breeding in the future are those who form tight communities that promote relatively religiously extreme values (that happen to include having lots of children).

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#18

Post by hackerlight »

defrost wrote: post #5
bamboozled wrote: post #3

Positive on the one hand, stupid it took us this long on the other.

It's worth looking back at 50 years of fossil fuel producers going into overdrive on casting FUD on harmful effects of CO2 since it was first raised at the UN in the 1970s.

To clarify the article. This isn't peak CO2. It isn't even peak pollution. It's peak first derivative of pollution ex. greenhouse gases. We'll get to peak CO2 when emissions of CO2 are net zero, so in a few decades at best. Until then atmospheric carbon and average temperatures will keep rising.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#19

Post by skissane »

monero-xmr wrote: post #12
developerDan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is to say children today will have children of their own tomorrow? People who are choosing not to have kids “leaving the gene pool” (you say it as if they are some filth to be done away with) doesn’t change anything.

If you don’t reproduce then your genes are not passed on. You have self-selected not to be part of the human race any longer. My hunch is that the people who still decide to reproduce, despite all the reasons people who advocate for not having children talk about, likely have some sort of genetic predisposition for reproduction - a strong innate need. After all the non-breeders die off, the future belongs to the repr…

Not just in terms of selecting genes, but also selecting cultures.

If allele A causes increased desire to reproduce than allele B, then in a society in which reproduction is viewed as an optional extra, all else being equal, allele A is likely to predominate allele B over time. Conversely, in a more traditional society in which everyone is subject to a strong social expectation to reproduce, allele A would have far less of an advantage over allele B.

An allele might lead to increased reproduction indirectly rather than directly. For example, if an allele makes a person more likely to be religious, and if religious people are more likely to have kids, then even though that allele does not directly impact desire to reproduce, it may be selected for due to its indirect impact on reproduction.

That's genetics; coming to culture: if subculture A puts higher emphasis on reproduction than subculture B, then all else being equal, in the long-run subculture A is likely to outnumber subculture B, irrespective of any genetic factors. However, defections from subculture A to subculture B may erase much of its innate demographic advantage. This suggests in the long-run, the most demographically successful subcultures will be those which combine sustained high fertility with sustained insularity (social barriers to defection to other subcultures)–which is exactly what we observe with groups like the Amish and ultra-Orthodox Jews.

Post reply on HN