4 ms·

There are too many people on the planet to start with, and 1/6 of them is in China. The effect that they are having on the environment (both in "nature" and in

There are too many people on the planet to start with, and 1/6 of them is in China. The effect that they are having on the environment (both in "nature" and in their own living spaces) is atrocious, but there are too many people to reasonably switch to a sustainable model. Additionally, if you account for the fact that a gigantic portion of their land is basically uninhabitable (the Gobi Desert), they have an unreal population density (among non-trivial sovereign nations). If their population keeps expanding unchecked, they'll stop being able to feed everyone.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
> there are too many people on the planet to start with Earth doesn't have too many people. The people inhabiting it are just, currently, quite wasteful with resources.
- BookmarkSaver 11y ago
  At the trajectory we are going, there are too many people. Rather than simply assuming a solution would appear, China took action.
- WildUtah 11y ago
  Earth doesn't have too many people. The people inhabiting it are just, currently, quite wasteful with resources. What's the goal here? We could have many more people each living in misery, crowding, and poverty. Or we could have fewer people with each one being rich and free and having access to parks and open space to breathe and relax. More people isn't somehow good in itself. Children are great but one or two is enough.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    > We could have many more people each living in misery, crowding, and poverty. Or we could have fewer people with each one being rich and free and having access to parks and open space to breathe and relax. A false dichotomy. The latter experience can be given to the former's population. More people isn't somehow "good", but it's not bad.
    - jquery 11y ago
      > The latter experience can be given to the former's population. How? Keep in mind only a small fraction of the world's population is even capable of being a tourist. Imagine how that changes when everyone is well-off enough to travel at will. Imagine your favorite beach, favorite museum, or your favorite national park and multiply the number of visitors by 10, 20, 40, etc. Waiting-lists for years to visit the Louvre. Prices so high that only the 1% of the 1% can afford to visit Maui. Maybe you are assuming that VR will solve these issues? Perhaps a Matrix-like future awaits us.
      - hightechlowlife 11y ago
        Most of us discussing this are already living a Matrix-like reality. 80%+ of life in front of a screen, with that last bit of time at the gym (with screens), cafe/bar (with screens), or maybe an inner-city park (with cellphone screen out). A diet primarily consisting of processed grain, factory meat and barren vegetation. Blaming our inevitable neuroticism on a chemical imbalance or moral failure, not the alienated zoo life we live -- or worse, distracting ourselves so thoroughly we don't notice it. Of course this kind of person is going to think we can fit billions more on the planet. Our wellbeing probably does rely on technology like VR and automation, but with so many mentally ill, I would say our current situation is already unacceptable (and has been for thousands of years). Adding billions more to the equation isn't going to help.
humanrebar 11y ago
> There are too many people on the planet to start with The issue isn't whether that's true. The issue is who gets to decide what the right number is and what we all do about it. To most of us, the moral hazards (and realities!) of coercive birth control are severe.
- jquery 11y ago
  The moral hazards of uncontrolled population growth are far more severe. The only question is whether we control population via a statutory law (as China did), or through extreme costs-of-living (as "liberal" Western countries do). I'd argue a statutory law is far more humane. Not only more humane, but more fair. Why should the people who provide the least resources to their children be the ones to create the most human progeny?
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    Given that coercive abortion and gender selection are realities and the problems of overpopulation are more theoretical, I wonder what your definition of humane is. And again, who decides which is more humane? If you and your cohort wants to stop reproducing as a good example, nobody is stopping you.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      > who decides which is more humane? Your elected government? Isn't that what you elected it for? Or just hold a referendum or something. The "who decides" question is a problem here. It doesn't matter who, it only matters that the decision has to be made and then carried out. The coordination has to arise or be enforced, but happen the coordination must. What you're implying by asking this question has many names. In politics, it's "total anarchy". In biology, it's "cancer". In infrastructure projects, it's called NIMBYsm. Imagine trying to run a large company with the rule "we're all equal, who gets to decide?" - how long would it survive? Like it or not, Earth will have to have a "top management" layer. Run it top-down, run it co-op style, whatever - but after some size, you can no longer ignore the looming coordination problems and their deadly consequences. Yes, as with everything, there are failure modes. Coercive abortion and gender selection happen mostly because of misalignment between "one child rule" and the economics, so the people selfishly prefer to spawn an offspring that will give better economic payoff. But incentive structures we can manage. We could manage it better if we stopped just asking "who gets to decide?" and instead picked someone to decide. Also, the only problem with "coercive abortion" is the "coercive" part; if you believe that abortion is ok, then gender selection via abortion is also ok. If you don't believe gender selection via abortion is ok, then you also must disagree with general abortion as a practice. EDIT: Also2, we have a "who gets to decide?" problem when it comes to inconvenience ourselves and spawn less children, but we do not have that problem when it comes to decide who to bomb the living shit out of, killing their children, along with parents, grandparents, livestock and future. Strange, isn't it?
adamnyberg 11y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UbmG8gtBPM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UbmG8gtBPM

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

> there are too many people on the planet to start with Earth doesn't have too many people. The people inhabiting it are just, currently, quite wasteful with resources.

BookmarkSaver 11y ago
At the trajectory we are going, there are too many people. Rather than simply assuming a solution would appear, China took action.
WildUtah 11y ago
Earth doesn't have too many people. The people inhabiting it are just, currently, quite wasteful with resources. What's the goal here? We could have many more people each living in misery, crowding, and poverty. Or we could have fewer people with each one being rich and free and having access to parks and open space to breathe and relax. More people isn't somehow good in itself. Children are great but one or two is enough.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  > We could have many more people each living in misery, crowding, and poverty. Or we could have fewer people with each one being rich and free and having access to parks and open space to breathe and relax. A false dichotomy. The latter experience can be given to the former's population. More people isn't somehow "good", but it's not bad.
  - jquery 11y ago
    > The latter experience can be given to the former's population. How? Keep in mind only a small fraction of the world's population is even capable of being a tourist. Imagine how that changes when everyone is well-off enough to travel at will. Imagine your favorite beach, favorite museum, or your favorite national park and multiply the number of visitors by 10, 20, 40, etc. Waiting-lists for years to visit the Louvre. Prices so high that only the 1% of the 1% can afford to visit Maui. Maybe you are assuming that VR will solve these issues? Perhaps a Matrix-like future awaits us.
    - hightechlowlife 11y ago
      Most of us discussing this are already living a Matrix-like reality. 80%+ of life in front of a screen, with that last bit of time at the gym (with screens), cafe/bar (with screens), or maybe an inner-city park (with cellphone screen out). A diet primarily consisting of processed grain, factory meat and barren vegetation. Blaming our inevitable neuroticism on a chemical imbalance or moral failure, not the alienated zoo life we live -- or worse, distracting ourselves so thoroughly we don't notice it. Of course this kind of person is going to think we can fit billions more on the planet. Our wellbeing probably does rely on technology like VR and automation, but with so many mentally ill, I would say our current situation is already unacceptable (and has been for thousands of years). Adding billions more to the equation isn't going to help.

humanrebar 11y ago

> There are too many people on the planet to start with The issue isn't whether that's true. The issue is who gets to decide what the right number is and what we all do about it. To most of us, the moral hazards (and realities!) of coercive birth control are severe.

jquery 11y ago
The moral hazards of uncontrolled population growth are far more severe. The only question is whether we control population via a statutory law (as China did), or through extreme costs-of-living (as "liberal" Western countries do). I'd argue a statutory law is far more humane. Not only more humane, but more fair. Why should the people who provide the least resources to their children be the ones to create the most human progeny?
- humanrebar 11y ago
  Given that coercive abortion and gender selection are realities and the problems of overpopulation are more theoretical, I wonder what your definition of humane is. And again, who decides which is more humane? If you and your cohort wants to stop reproducing as a good example, nobody is stopping you.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > who decides which is more humane? Your elected government? Isn't that what you elected it for? Or just hold a referendum or something. The "who decides" question is a problem here. It doesn't matter who, it only matters that the decision has to be made and then carried out. The coordination has to arise or be enforced, but happen the coordination must. What you're implying by asking this question has many names. In politics, it's "total anarchy". In biology, it's "cancer". In infrastructure projects, it's called NIMBYsm. Imagine trying to run a large company with the rule "we're all equal, who gets to decide?" - how long would it survive? Like it or not, Earth will have to have a "top management" layer. Run it top-down, run it co-op style, whatever - but after some size, you can no longer ignore the looming coordination problems and their deadly consequences. Yes, as with everything, there are failure modes. Coercive abortion and gender selection happen mostly because of misalignment between "one child rule" and the economics, so the people selfishly prefer to spawn an offspring that will give better economic payoff. But incentive structures we can manage. We could manage it better if we stopped just asking "who gets to decide?" and instead picked someone to decide. Also, the only problem with "coercive abortion" is the "coercive" part; if you believe that abortion is ok, then gender selection via abortion is also ok. If you don't believe gender selection via abortion is ok, then you also must disagree with general abortion as a practice. EDIT: Also2, we have a "who gets to decide?" problem when it comes to inconvenience ourselves and spawn less children, but we do not have that problem when it comes to decide who to bomb the living shit out of, killing their children, along with parents, grandparents, livestock and future. Strange, isn't it?

adamnyberg 11y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UbmG8gtBPM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UbmG8gtBPM