4 ms·

There's also the argument that wanting to reproduce is a natural human urge, and you're asking people to go against a very key biological instinct. We haven't

by hnhg 10y ago

There's also the argument that wanting to reproduce is a natural human urge, and you're asking people to go against a very key biological instinct. We haven't done all we can to protect the environment. We haven't even tried that hard. It might be easier to reduce our personal impact to 10% than try to reduce the world's population by the same level.

mathetic 10y ago
Well, I constrained the scope, but CO2 emission is not the only problem about the environment. Most resource are scarce and although I believe in Elon Musk as much as the next techie, we can't just take a leap of faith. Water is scarce, energy is scarce (though we are getting better), but we are growing at an unsustainable rate. Now the main problem is that if you reduce your CO2 emission by 80% and you and all your offsprings have two kids and each consume at your reduced level, in just two generations, it would been better if you didn't have kids. Two generations after that even at the reduced consumption, you (by having kids) contribute to CO2 emission by a factor of 6 if you have just consumed all the meat and didn't have kids. Geometric progression is a nasty nasty thing.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  >"you and all your offsprings have two kids" Two kids per couple isn't enough to cause population growth. Two parents having two kids leads to the exact same number of people on the planet after the parents die. We only see population growth with 3+ kids per couple, and that's becoming increasingly uncommon in developed countries.
  - xiaoma 10y ago
    It could. If lifespans were so long as to be nearly immortal (which may happen in our lifetimes), then the birth rate that would lead to stable population level would be one per couple. At that rate, a population of N would asymptotically approach 2N. Absolute immortality isn't a plausible scenario, but it's important to consider that as longevity increases, the reproductive rate that leads to a stable population must go down.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      Sure, at the point of signficant life extension we would need to set stricter limits on population size, but we're not quite there yet. Also, whilst there is some overlap, I think it's helpful to think of environmental damage and overpopulation as separate, as we'll have a hard enough time convincing people to change their daily habits without also asking them to give up on the idea on having multiple kids.
ZenoArrow 10y ago
Exactly. Whilst human population can't continue to grow on this planet indefinitely, there's plenty that can be done to push our societies in a direction that works with nature. That should be our focus. To give one example of how working with nature benefits us all, check out this talk by William McDonough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoRjz8iTVoo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoRjz8iTVoo
greenhatman 10y ago
We already do a lot of things that go against our biological instincts. Which is probably one of the main reasons humans are so successful as a species. We can change ourselves some more, if it will increase the chances of our species' survival. We sit in font of computers the whole day. The disciplined ones runs when there is no immediate danger or prey. We don't attack or kill people when they make us angry. We don't have sex with everything that has a chance to bear offspring.
- ekzy 10y ago
  But we are doing more and more things going against our biological instincts, especially in the last century; So I don't know if I would qualify the current human a successful species. We are destroying our habitat

by hnhg 10y ago

mathetic 10y ago

Well, I constrained the scope, but CO2 emission is not the only problem about the environment. Most resource are scarce and although I believe in Elon Musk as much as the next techie, we can't just take a leap of faith. Water is scarce, energy is scarce (though we are getting better), but we are growing at an unsustainable rate. Now the main problem is that if you reduce your CO2 emission by 80% and you and all your offsprings have two kids and each consume at your reduced level, in just two generations, it would been better if you didn't have kids. Two generations after that even at the reduced consumption, you (by having kids) contribute to CO2 emission by a factor of 6 if you have just consumed all the meat and didn't have kids. Geometric progression is a nasty nasty thing.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
>"you and all your offsprings have two kids" Two kids per couple isn't enough to cause population growth. Two parents having two kids leads to the exact same number of people on the planet after the parents die. We only see population growth with 3+ kids per couple, and that's becoming increasingly uncommon in developed countries.
- xiaoma 10y ago
  It could. If lifespans were so long as to be nearly immortal (which may happen in our lifetimes), then the birth rate that would lead to stable population level would be one per couple. At that rate, a population of N would asymptotically approach 2N. Absolute immortality isn't a plausible scenario, but it's important to consider that as longevity increases, the reproductive rate that leads to a stable population must go down.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    Sure, at the point of signficant life extension we would need to set stricter limits on population size, but we're not quite there yet. Also, whilst there is some overlap, I think it's helpful to think of environmental damage and overpopulation as separate, as we'll have a hard enough time convincing people to change their daily habits without also asking them to give up on the idea on having multiple kids.

ZenoArrow 10y ago

Exactly. Whilst human population can't continue to grow on this planet indefinitely, there's plenty that can be done to push our societies in a direction that works with nature. That should be our focus. To give one example of how working with nature benefits us all, check out this talk by William McDonough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoRjz8iTVoo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoRjz8iTVoo

greenhatman 10y ago

We already do a lot of things that go against our biological instincts. Which is probably one of the main reasons humans are so successful as a species. We can change ourselves some more, if it will increase the chances of our species' survival. We sit in font of computers the whole day. The disciplined ones runs when there is no immediate danger or prey. We don't attack or kill people when they make us angry. We don't have sex with everything that has a chance to bear offspring.

ekzy 10y ago
But we are doing more and more things going against our biological instincts, especially in the last century; So I don't know if I would qualify the current human a successful species. We are destroying our habitat