The world has probably passed peak pollution • Hacker News Board

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#251

Post by wing-_-nuts » Fri, May 10, 2024, 7:11 PM UTC

rshannon3 wrote: post #244

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If life is so miserable why would people continue to have so many children? This right here is why I'm child free. First, My own upbringing did nothing to equip me to properly raise a child. I simply cannot trust myself to do a good job. Second, why would I bring a child into a world where each year will only be worst than the last, and their lot in life is to suffer the decline of the natural world and perhaps civi…

Isn't this the exact premise of the movie Idiocracy?

Don't worry, I'm one of the idiots.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#252

Post by maxwell » Fri, May 10, 2024, 7:12 PM UTC

detourdog wrote: post #210

nostrademons wrote: post #208

It's interesting to revisit the Limits to Growth study [1] in light of these recently-declining exponential curves. Somebody did [2] and found that we're basically on track for the model's bleak predictions. But the way that the model's predictions have come true is different than what's been popularized. Instead of mass die-offs from famine and pollution, we're seeing population collapse because of birth control, de…

It might be more like the "dark ages". The people got along we don't know what they were doing but the result was the "renaissance".

They were called such due to the decline of written material: the written record went "dark" compared to antiquity and then modernity.

Definitely in another dark age in that sense, due to the postmodern decline of meaningful written communication on paper.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#253

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 10, 2024, 7:14 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #208

It's interesting to revisit the Limits to Growth study [1] in light of these recently-declining exponential curves. Somebody did [2] and found that we're basically on track for the model's bleak predictions. But the way that the model's predictions have come true is different than what's been popularized. Instead of mass die-offs from famine and pollution, we're seeing population collapse because of birth control, de…

[deleted]

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#254

Post by faeriechangling » Fri, May 10, 2024, 7:19 PM UTC

kaashif wrote: post #239

faeriechangling wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I rarely run into a person that values their own life as high as 10 million dollars, unless they're quite wealthy.

Really? I would value my life much more than that. I think how the question is phrased really matters. How much do you value your life? Or how much would someone have to pay you to kill yourself? Are these even different questions?

I was recently buying an older car and calculating out how much buying a newer car with more safety features was worse by assigning a value to my life/health and the risk of death and the risk of injury. I see used cars which generation over generation have major safety upgrades which, if you value your life at 10 million would probably save you 10 grand or so over the life of the car, having a gulf in price of a few thousand, and most of that value difference wasn't because of the safety features.

I guess it's possible people are just ignorant, but in general I see people especially men acting recklessly enough with their lives that they seem to not ascribe the highest values to them. They would rather have a shorter life where they have more money and other things.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#255

Post by 39896880 » Fri, May 10, 2024, 7:21 PM UTC

grecy wrote: post #27

iiovemiku wrote: post #8

Earlier 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…

> Wow, seeing peak baby is a little scary honestly Are you worried 8 billion is somehow not enough humans?

“Number of humans” is a nonsensical metric because it doesn’t acknowledge the systems that humans comprise. For example, we depend on the young to earn/work and the middle aged to earn/work/invest to support the old/disabled. What happens when there are fewer young people, and then fewer middle aged people, to support the old /disabled not in just a few pockets of the world but in many countries all at once is still very much unknown.

It’s not the number of humans, it’s the age distribution of those humans + where they live.

Put another way: you can “feel” like the world needs fewer people, but you’re probably not going to like what your world looks like when that desire comes true.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#256

Post by happypumpkin » Fri, May 10, 2024, 7:23 PM UTC

doug_durham wrote: post #199

rustcleaner wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a friendly reminder to modern Progressives that (on average) you will not be in the future described by parent because you were tricked into an anti-natalist posture and will fail to reproduce adequately. It's a problem which kills itself in time so long as the problem doesn't ideologically metastasize into competiting populations.

Ahh, so conspiracies now. Interesting approach. "They" tricked us with the ever menacing "they".

Their theory also depends on the children of the "conservatives that have the most kids" remaining conservative, which I haven't observed among my own social group. My friends that had the most conservative parents (ex: Jehovah's Witnesses) went the furthest in the opposite direction, becoming progressives who don't want many (or any) kids.

Personally, I'd rather have fewer kids and be able to give them more attention and resources.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#257

Post by jandrese » Fri, May 10, 2024, 7:23 PM UTC

faeriechangling wrote: post #219

cs702 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure "peak baby" is a good thing, but agree with you that the other three peaks are encouraging. Arguments by smart people like Sabine Hossenfelder have led me to question the conventional wisdom on population growth. For example, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1AaZ9OkH8 .

A shrinking population is fine, this planet has its limits. A rapidly shrinking population is not ideal.

There is a lot of panic over shrinking population where people project it out 1000 years and find there are only like 5 people left in the world.

Steady state population should be the long term goal, at least until we start moving into orbital colonies or something. But unfortunately that's an anathema to growth oriented economies which makes it the bad guy in economics and politics.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#258

Post by NewJazz » Fri, May 10, 2024, 7:26 PM UTC

illiac786 wrote: post #120

I find this title highly misleading “peak emission” would be much more accurate. “Peak pollution” sounds like the amount of pollution in the environment will actually _decrease_ going forward. That is simply not true, it will continue to increase, just slightly less fast. Sorry if I don’t feel euphoric right now.

Isn't the concept of pollution highly subjective?

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#259

Post by faeriechangling » Fri, May 10, 2024, 7:34 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #257

faeriechangling wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A shrinking population is fine, this planet has its limits. A rapidly shrinking population is not ideal.

There is a lot of panic over shrinking population where people project it out 1000 years and find there are only like 5 people left in the world. Steady state population should be the long term goal, at least until we start moving into orbital colonies or something. But unfortunately that's an anathema to growth oriented economies which makes it the bad guy in economics and politics.

I mean Japan hasn't been doing great but it's been doing fine, so I don't think the end of growth has to mean anything but a period of stagnation. The economy will be fine.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#260

Post by sandworm101 » Fri, May 10, 2024, 7:35 PM UTC

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...

Anyone one to watch is 'peak road' or peak transport.

Most countries continue to steadily expand transport infrastructure. Returning some of that back to a natural state, or just abandoning it, does happen but remains very rare.