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

China to begin two-child policy

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 455 posts

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#371

Post by c0achmcguirk »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #217
c0achmcguirk wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> America has been slowly transitioning from a superstitious nation to a more rational one. lulz Rationality requires laws of logic--which do not exist in a humanistic, materialistic world. Tell me, can you stub your toe on the law of non-contradiction? No? How does it exist then?

I guess liquid water doesn't exist. I'm really unsure what point you're trying to make.

It's an expression. Liquid water has mass and takes up space. It's material. It exists in a materialistic universe where the only things that exist are matter an energy.

On the other hand, there's nothing physical about "laws." They lose their law-like properties and become conventions of thought rather than regulators of truth and rationality in a world where only matter and energy exist.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#372

Post by TeMPOraL »

Idontagree wrote: post #171
dyeje wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest you read up on the carrying capacity of Earth.

How is it that we're on a technology forum and people continually insist that we've achieved the maximum rate of advancement? Also we most certainly do not spend all of our resources advancing areas of technology that would sustain more people, for instance I think there could easily be more research put into food growth/production/sustainability and perhaps things like housing development than are currently being do…

Some of us wish we'd be smarter than free market and have the ability to allocate resources proactively, instead at the last possible minute, when prices finally start to reflect the impending doom. Noticing that Earth has a carrying capacity and that we have to do something about it (either stop growing, lower our footprint or extend that capacity) is expressing the belief that we can do better.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#373

Post by TeMPOraL »

Jemmeh wrote: post #135
sahreeg wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree with you. In terms of population alone, we are exceedingly multiplying; something that might not be of out best advantage. More even when you consider that there will be less opportunities for an increasing number of people, and we will lose this personal freedom you spoke of -to an extent- I am also pro child limit laws. I would suggest nothing too strict, just impose a tax on the third child and…

As much as I agree that the earth is overpopulated, I think better than taxing people is providing access to free birth control. A lot of people don't have access to it, or education about it.

Having many children is an economic issue, not access-to-birth-control issue. Poor families in third world countries will continue to mass-produce children because they can't afford not to. For the contraception to be used, we need to raise them out of poverty first.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#374

Post by c0achmcguirk »

gnaritas wrote: post #271
c0achmcguirk wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> America has been slowly transitioning from a superstitious nation to a more rational one. lulz Rationality requires laws of logic--which do not exist in a humanistic, materialistic world. Tell me, can you stub your toe on the law of non-contradiction? No? How does it exist then?

> Rationality requires laws of logic--which do not exist in a humanistic, materialistic world. And how do you suppose that? Materialism doesn't deny the existence of logic; you seem to not really know what materialism is. > Tell me, can you stub your toe on the law of non-contradiction? No? How does it exist then? Yea, you don't know what materialism is. I can't stub my toe on hacker news either, nor any website, but…

> To a materialist, mind is simply what the brain does.

You're adorable.

If Charlie holds to different laws of logic than Bill...whose brain is right?

Your view is that laws are just conventions of thought. Those aren't laws, then.

I again assert: rationality is impossible without laws of logic. With conventions of logic, you just have strong opinions.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#375

Post by rz2k »

mikeyouse wrote: post #336
nickbauman wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably 1/2 of the molecules in our bodies come from the artificial nitrogen extraction process developed during WWI. Without that, Earth's human population would have been limited to half of what it is now back in the 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Haber_process

If you haven't read it, I'd highly recommend the book, "The Alchemy of Air" about the invention of Haber-Bosch.. It was unbelievable what they went through to fix nitrogen, they literally invented new fields of study in materials science and chemistry. The perils of a Jewish inventor creating a new method for making explosives under the Third Reich is a side story in the book but another fascinating historical anecdo…

And also Zyklon which would become Zyklon B when the warning eye irritant was removed to make it a better weapon for murdering people. There was a RadioLab[1] episode that talked about how it was eventually used on some of his own relatives.

[1] http://www.radiolab.org/story/180132-how-do-you-solve-proble...

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#376

Post by TeMPOraL »

hellbanner wrote: post #107
flgb wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The earth doesn't have a "carrying capacity" or a "maximum population". The earth has resources that are used more or less sustainably at different times and in different places. If we all still lived like hunter gatherers we would have run out of resources and become extinct thousands of years ago. Luckily we've had social, economic, and technological development. As soon as anyone frames sustainability challenges i…

Eventually we'll have to reach other planets.. and invent wormholes to move past the universe expanding preventing our light cones from reaching other materials.

Aren't we a cancer that consumes the worlds?

It gives me an idea for a sci-fi story, where a stable civilization of smart beings faces a threat of the sphere of all-consuming humans expanding at the speed of light.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#377

Post by TeMPOraL »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #163
tremon wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean, it is not a problem because the planet can support that many? Or do you mean it is a problem, but it will solve itself? I don't think either is correct. The first is only true today because non-First World inhabitants are living on a much smaller ecological footprint than Europe and the US. However, that footprint is increasing rapidly. The second reading at least acknowledges there is a problem, but I thin…

> "Even the most generous estimates I've seen place the Earth's carrying capacity at 7.7 billion people." Can you show me these estimates? Do they take into account ways we could live with a smaller footprint (e.g. vegetarian/vegan diet) and/or advances in eco-friendly technology?

Denying people their meat or SUVs is an equivalent problem to limiting the number of children they have. People won't give their "freedoms" voluntarily - you have to force them either by law or by economy (and letting the free market take care of it will likely be too little too late).

The whole argument sounds to me like "we don't have to force people to change their lifestyle to adjust for Earth's capacity - we can always force people to change their lifestyle".

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#378

Post by TeMPOraL »

XorNot wrote: post #91
LoSboccacc wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and that's why I included culling in the options. Doesn't need to be voluntary. Diseases, war, famine all are under the same umbrella.

No, you've still failed to comprehend the point: people, in general, do not have more then 2 children on average, as they increase their lifestyle. Which highlights the other reason people talking about overpopulation are unsettling: suddenly everyone's playing psychopath.

So we have to increase the lifestyle of 2/3 of the world. The West is free to have 2 or less children on average. Africa doesn't give a shit, they're too poor to afford it - so their population grows.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#379

Post by TeMPOraL »

s_dev wrote: post #9

Overpopulation is an interesting problem, it exponentially affects every other problem we have -- some balance will have to be found between ultimately telling people they can't kids or maintaining that those people have autonomy over their own lives and can make such a decision. I don't know what the solution is - perhaps making the developing world developed as fast as possible.

The people saying it's not a problem or that it will sort itself out are missing one crucial point - all the solutions for maintaining and/or stabilizing a big population require technology, which requires a technological civilization to exist. A technological civilization is not a stable, natural state, and industrial plants do not grow on trees. If the growing population destabilizes - let's be frank, Western - civilization, the world is fucked. The population will bounce back, with billions dying from hunger and war.

Re: China to begin two-child policy

#380

Post by clock_tower »

superuser2 wrote: post #363
lotharbot wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

population doesn't keep doubling over and over again. It follows a logistic curve ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function ). Human population probably reached the midpoint of the curve around 1980 ( http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil_files/image... ) and is expected to become fairly level between 9 and 13 billion ( http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/ select Population -> Total Population -> WOR…

Yes, it follows a logistic curve because it hits carrying capacity. The top of that curve is not a pleasant place.

In this case, population isn't close to carrying capacity, but is following that curve anyways.
Post reply on HN