Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every single person? Not exactly. What about farmers forced off their land for corporate interests? What about people working in the garbage dumps of Tijuana in Mexico [1]? I've actually lived in the "first world" (born there) and now have lived over a year in a developing country where most people (including myself) don't have "aircon", and whether technology has improved things is not as clearcut as you might think…
> Actually, I think the standard of living, at least in the long-term and for the many future climate refugees, is not actually that much improved. This is basically pure anecdote.
The world has probably passed peak pollution
151–160 of 383 posts
Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Putting aside the considerable statistical skepticism, the natural next question we all have at noticing these trends is - is there any way for secular society to get some of the "special sauce" these ultra-religious groups have, before the aggregate supply of everything starts to fall? Secular pronatalism doesn't seem like it has a lot of staying power with most people as an ideology. But I've been on board for a lo…
I’m sceptical about how successful secular pronatalism can be. Large families, generation after generation, can come at a substantial personal cost, and it is a difficult sell for individuals if it is just a matter of principle, as opposed to something backed by promises and threats of post mortem reward and punishment. Furthermore, many religious pronatal groups reduce defections by socially ostracising and demonisi…
Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution
#153Positive on the one hand, stupid it took us this long on the other.
Posted from a huge house with air conditioning while using multiple petroleum products (iPhone/computer, chair, desk, fleece, etc). The pollution lifted every single person’s standard of living across the globe to levels unimaginable 100 years ago. It’s easy to be in Seattle or New York and say we gotta stop burning oil and coal but there are trade offs that were worth making. If you live in a developing country with…
We screwed up this hard because we burned fossil fuels as they were highly profitable for a handful of our species.
Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I've never understood the panic over a declining birth rate. Are we to be scared that long after we're all dead and gone there would only be several billion humans on this planet?
The concern is increasing taxation of the young, productive population to sustain the old, non productive population causing political turmoil and decreasing national competitiveness on the global scale.
Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution
#155The good news is you’ve taken your foot off the gas. The bad news is the car is going 100mph and there is a cliff edge in 10 feet.
Given that (with regard to greenhouse gasses) we've a) unlocked positive feedback emission loops from tropical & arctic methane and b) still pumping increasing amounts of carbon into the air, it's clear to anyone paying attention that we've already fallen off the cliff. We're just hovering for a second like Wile E Coyote.
Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution
#156That'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...
Peak Coal - Probably, very likely, more or less about right now. Global coal supply likely peaked in 2023 and then to decline https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38652273 Can't say for sure until another few years have passed, nonetheless every country in the world has coal on hold or in decline save for India and China. China is the largest producer of renewable technology and energy (?), India is building out the…
Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is true that once you are rich enough you no longer need children to help support the family unit as was an imperative historically (and still in the poor parts of the world), so we cannot discount the economics. That is no doubt why it became the fashion. It was a demonstration of how rich we've become. A display of human progress and achievement. But I see some change in sentiment around questioning what good is…
The problem is the lack of stability not wealth, though wealth should contribute to stability. Housing and transportation continue to dominate American household budget. Now, I did read that somebody suggesting that it's not cost but density that reduces population fertility. I would wonder if that just means we need to provide more spaces for families within cities.
Children are resilient. Hell, we've raised children through terrible wars and famines. Being born into a relatively peaceful era and the wealthiest time in history is about as stable as it gets.
You may have a point that potential parents are putting pressure on themselves to be the perfect soccer mom and dads, carting their kids around in their Escalades, and then returning home to sleep in their mansions, and if they end up anywhere short of that they are not worthy of having children. But that's just part of the fashion du jour. Children don't need or even care for any of that.
> I did read that somebody suggesting that it's not cost but density that reduces population fertility.
I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that cost is a factor. Sure, there is that study that suggests it costs ~$10,000-20,000+ per year to raise a child, but when you look closely the cost is for things like buying a bigger house. You don't need a bigger house to raise children. Look at what American settlers raised children in: Tiny, single room log cabins. And they had, on average, eight children living in them!
The density suggestion is interesting, although I'm not sure it tracks. For example, the least dense US states, Maine and Vermont with only ~35% urbanization, have lower fertility than New York and California with ~90% urbanization. I expect what was noticed is merely correlationary as urbanization and the general ability to opt to not have children are both not realistic until a society reaches a certain level of wealth. In other words, the societies that are rich enough to opt to have few children are also more likely to be urbanized.
But humans are social creatures. And it hasn't been socially acceptable to have children in the modern age, at least not until you are into your 30s, at which point go ahead, society gives the green light (It will even start to cry: "Why haven't you had children yet???") – but by then, good luck having more than approximately one child before biology puts an end to the party.
Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution
#158Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution
#159We may not yet have had the war that ends all wars. Whenever I think about protecting the environment, I think about preventing the catastrophes that are wars.
It would seem politicians, especially in the West do not care at all about that concern.
Unfortunately it's the politicians that are not beholden to ballot boxes that have no incentive to stop blowing people up.
Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, seeing peak baby is a little scary honestly. I had always thought that low birth rates were a problem for only countries like Germany, Spain, Japan, etc. (at least for the time being). Seeing countries like India even out (and even going under replacement rate) gives me some heavy pessimism about population graying. I had always thought that heavy swingers like them would carry on the whole growing population th…
At some point we can’t rely on ever growing populations. It may be painful for a while but at some point growth has to stop.
But unlimited growth is always on the menu for startups and companies! Investors, am I right?!
/s