Live data from Hacker News

The world has probably passed peak pollution

sustainabilitybynumbers.com

331–340 of 383 posts

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big dividing line is between those who think people are a burden vs those who think they're an asset. I've grown convinced people are overwhelmingly an asset. In a rough sense that means they/we produce more value than they consume on average. I think debates about population size are mostly really about this difference.

The way the burdens and assets scale is non-linear. There's no reason to expect that we always or never want the population to go up, regardless of current population. And we went from 1 billion to 2 billion to 8 billion very very fast. The burdens are really piling up.

You're clearly on the other side of this dividing line.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#332

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.

> will actually _decrease_ going forward. The ratio of (pollution/living person) will decrease. Unless you want to start unaliving people then this is a fixed fact of the world we live on.

...where "pollution" means "air pollution".

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#333
post #318

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.

So a more accurate statement would be that a derivative of pollution has peaked.

[deleted]

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#334
post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m no climate scientist but I would think it’s similar to toxicity/poisoning. You can die from water intoxication but certainly you need it to live as well. So no, I don’t think it’s subjective. It seems to me that if something is capable of causing harm in a certain amount, it’s poisonous/pollution/toxic.

Yes, the dangers of Dihydrogen monoxide are well known yet underestimated

Dihydrogen monoxide levels have also peaked.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they are going to have to change as they grow. The question is how big the changes will be. We already see this in Israel - a big increase in Haredi women pursuing secular careers. In other communities worldwide, that development ended up significantly undermining the patriarchal culture and producing a demographic transition to lower fertility. But, will it necessarily have the same consequences for the Ha…

Almost anything is "possible", but this seems entirely implausible, based on extrapolation that goes at least an order of magnitude beyond anything supportable by evidence or careful argument. Can you name any other examples of this happening throughout history, in the US or anywhere else, where a completely self-isolated tiny minority group took power and displaced everyone through "out-procreating" them? To be hone…

> To be honest I really dislike this kind of vague speculative fearmongering when targeted at specific minority groups, which seems extremely dangerous. It historically blends right into overt bigotry and sectarian oppression.

Basically, I'm repeating the contention of sociologist Eric Kaufmann's book Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth–that in the long-run religious (ultra-)conservatives will dominate due to high birth and retention rates.

It isn't "fearmongering", because that assumes one is presenting a takeover by religious conservatives as negative. One might view it as positive. One might view it as neutral. I'm not presenting any value judgement of it here.

The contention isn't about any religious group in particular, it is about ultra-conservative religious groups in general. Ultra-Orthodox Jews happen to be the clearest example of the phenomenon, but there are other candidates – Old Order Amish, Latin Mass Roman Catholics, Salafist Muslims, etc.

Personally, I doubt ultra-Orthodox Jews will ever single-handedly takeover America, because in the scenario I am talking about, there will likely be other (non-Jewish) ultra-conservative religious groups, with which they'll share power. But I do think it plausible that in 2 or 3 centuries from now, North America will be a much more reliigious and much more conservative place than it is today. Not certain, of course, but plausible.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#336
post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that these are still very much niche interests after many generations indicates that the social indoctrination processes needed to maintain such cultures are not scalable. In 2023, Israel contained over 1.28 million ultra-Orthodox Jews, 13.5% of Israel’s population. It is estimated that by the end of this decade, it will be over 16%. [0] By shortly after 2065, it is estimated that 50% of Israeli children w…

Don't the Haredi refuse to enlist? Doesn't seem sustainable...

Refusal of enlistment is not essential to the Haredi lifestyle, and so it seems plausible their resistance to that might gradually weaken

There is already a minority of them, the Hardal (Nationalist Haredi), who are happy to enlist, but whose birth rates, retention rates, and general lifestyle, are similar to the Haredi mainstream

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#337
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

[dead]

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#338

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…

Something affecting Mormon fertility rates specifically is the dramatic increase in housing costs in the “Mormon Corridor” (the inter mountain us west strip of geography where most Mormons live). It’s simply too expensive for most young Mormon families to live the lifestyle they used to; with large homes and large families.

That area of the US has some of the most newly unaffordable areas in the country

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way the burdens and assets scale is non-linear. There's no reason to expect that we always or never want the population to go up, regardless of current population. And we went from 1 billion to 2 billion to 8 billion very very fast. The burdens are really piling up.

You're clearly on the other side of this dividing line.

Don't label me so quickly.

I'm not saying we need less population at present.

I'm just saying that at some point the cost outweighs the benefit. And humanity has been trying pretty hard to go toward that point.

Do you really think it will always, always be better to have more people? If you say no to this, then you don't get to say we're on different sides of the line. If you say yes, then you need to explain how that's physically possible.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#340
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The problem is the lack of stability not wealth 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 re…

I believe that the stability being spoken of here is in the micro-environment of the household, and primarily concerns two things: first, the parents’ ability to provide for the children and keep a roof over their heads, and second, the parents’ emotional stability.

The latter is often closely tied to the former. When things get rough, things can get ugly. Tensions build and emotions run hot which at best makes for a less-than-stellar environment for kids to grow up in and at worst can lead to violence or divorce. Many young adults experienced this first hand in their childhood and want to avoid inflicting these situations on any potential children of their own.

As such, a lot of people who’d otherwise be parents have held out because they fear these scenarios playing out. For most, the goal probably isn’t to be perfect or raise their children in the lap of luxury, but simply to wait until they’re reasonably confident that they’ve precluded financial disaster for the most part and that hardship and struggle won’t be commonplace.

I don’t think that’s bad or wrong, and in fact I feel is thoughtful and responsible. With all this in mind, if an individual or group wants to look at turning around birth rate numbers, they would do well to address the issues that prevent young adults from feeling financially secure in this way.

Post reply on HN