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

151–160 of 480 posts

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#151

Post by nec4b »

hugh-avherald wrote: post #60
zizee wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whilst I don't agree with the article, you're ignoring that these epic machines you talk of are the product of a much larger population. These megamachines wouldn't exist, or at least not all the types of machines, if not for us having billions of people on the planet.

Australia lags behind other countries in certain technology, but not in mining technology. There's sufficient expertise in a population of a few million. (Of course, there's a disproportionate amount of mining engineering experts in Perth.)

Because they rely on billions of other people to do other things, so they can specialize in mining.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#152

Post by waffleiron »

chr1 wrote: post #150
deprecative wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Before capitalism all of the world was "Third world". And the equity you get without capitalism is everybody being equally poor. And then millions die, like in every attempt to build communism in past century.

I know it’s unfashionable to say on a venture capitalist forum, but millions die under capitalism too.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#153

Post by nec4b »

defrost wrote: post #22

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…

And how did you get to the point to be able produce do much ore? Where did the need, the ingenuity and the technology come from to enable you to this?

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#154

Post by jocoda »

smitty1e wrote: post #13

The arguments in the linked article all seem rooted in a traditional Western weltanschauung . This worldview is increasingly characterized (not without basis) as racist, sexist and fascist, mostly by critics whose personal positive contributions to human improvement are unclear. I'm not driving this bus; I just seem to be going under it. Maybe after the societal collapse the survivors can agree that the Critical Theo…

I strongly disagree with the article but what's with the ad hominim? - "...mostly by critics whose personal positive contributions to human improvement are unclear"

We're way past population levels where the traditional reaction to dissatisfaction with circumstances lets you pack up your tribe and move away to somewhere else. Everything is fenced in, and we are our own worst enemies. If you are nice or powerless you get trampled by the not so nice.

Maybe we'll adjust to a society that's equitable, for some high value of e. If so, I think we'll have evolved into something not human any more. Humans don't do nice.

Right now, it looks more like we're on the way to becoming morlocks and eloi.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#155

Post by nec4b »

defrost wrote: post #87
ezzaf wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And where are those mining machines that allow this to occur manufactured? How about all the components of the mining machines? The locomotives that take all that iron ore to port? The port infrastructure? The ships that transport the ore to its overseas customers? WA and its mining wealth and efficiency wouldn't exist without a global market for both its supply and demand.

Look at all the people involved in machine manufacture, transport, mining, etc. for sure. The point being made is that more and more tonnes of raw material are being shipped to smelters per person than ever before. Automation is still advancing so this will only increase, automation is also advancing in processing and production - we no longer need vast numbers of people to produce a billion tonnes of steel, and the…

No the automation would not increase if population would fall, because there would be less demand for iron ore. Your machines would rust away and the knowledge to make them would get lost. We are not living in Star trek utopia where with a push of a button a machine makes whatever you want. Less people means less specialization, less creativity and less activity.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#156

Post by slily »

fungiblecog wrote: post #3

Wow, it’s so easy when you don’t have to consider downsides!

Kind of like self-flagellating climate doomers who don't think (or perhaps don't care) about the implications of destroying social safety nets and overall quality of life for future generations, right. It may be too late to convince millenials that they're doing a far better job at dooming their children and grandchildren than they think baby boomers did to them, but for those with a more open mind it's good to see things from a different perspective once in a while.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#157

Post by abigail95 »

hcfman wrote: post #149

Unbelievable! The only way you could possibly argue that more humans is good if you also believe that it’s perfectly fine to wipe out all other species on the planet. The most true thing about this thread is the word selfish.

Is the world worse off because you exist in it? What should people who care about the planet do about that?

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#158

Post by alexey-salmin »

Depurator wrote: post #100
hazbot wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they are quite upfront about their values, and I suspect they would quite likely be OK with being labelled human-centric, as would I!

Certainly, it was just more of a general criticism toward such a view, as leading to long term degradation of the world. I totally get how humans would always protitize humanity first, but in the long term we have some issues such as overfishing, global warming, biodiversity loss etc. as a result. But the esiest would of course to not belive in thos issues, and have cool toys

You can't even define "degradation" without humans around. The planet itself doesn't care, nor does the fish.

Extending human empathy to non-human processes is peak anthropocentrism.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#159

Post by adastra22 »

Jensson wrote: post #126
healsdata wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The combined population of those countries is 2.8 billion. For your assertion to be true, 71% of those countries would have had to have been in poverty in the recent past and now are not.

You got about a billion in China, they were at the bottom end of the country gdp per capita rankings, now they are well into the upper half. The commenter probably assumed India did a similar journey, but India is still full of poverty and not even close to China, so yeah probably less than two billions combined but definitely more than a billion.

"More than a billion" is enough to add the -s in English grammar.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#160

Post by defrost »

nec4b wrote: post #155
defrost wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at all the people involved in machine manufacture, transport, mining, etc. for sure. The point being made is that more and more tonnes of raw material are being shipped to smelters per person than ever before. Automation is still advancing so this will only increase, automation is also advancing in processing and production - we no longer need vast numbers of people to produce a billion tonnes of steel, and the…

No the automation would not increase if population would fall, because there would be less demand for iron ore. Your machines would rust away and the knowledge to make them would get lost. We are not living in Star trek utopia where with a push of a button a machine makes whatever you want. Less people means less specialization, less creativity and less activity.

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 activity that sees results today came from a time 40 years ago when there were far fewer people than today.

Post reply on HN