3 ms·
That is outrageous? In my view you are skirting the truth (consciously or not). We are so concerned with human morality that we can reach conclusions full of so
by lsd5you 10y ago
That is outrageous? In my view you are skirting the truth (consciously or not). We are so concerned with human morality that we can reach conclusions full of sophistry and half truth like this.
Without making a value judgement, the uncomfortable reality is that there are too many people and the most effective policy would be one that addresses human over-population.
Yes people could conceivably reduce their foot print by urbanising, but economic growth also has environmental impact - and probably in some unforeseen ways in the region.
- agentgt 10y agoAt a high level I agree with you and over the years I admit have become soft or I would argue more open minded and even keeled. The need for population control policy has been discussed many times on HN. Some argue technology can fix the problem as well as education others are more to the extreme saying we need almost draconian enforcement. Many scifi writers have explored extreme (and dubious) urbanization which include carbon nano towers (Arthur C Clark Space Odyssey some year I don't remember). Historically urbanization has a cultural impact on lowering reproduction (source needed but I recall reading it I think in the Economist). That is you may not need as much policy as you might think.
- FrancoDiaz 10y agoI'm far from an environmentalist extremist, but at some point in time, increasing population density is going to be the only option.