5 ms·

This community is so fast to say Mars is possible. Mention any problem and it will start with the belief it's solvable and figure out how: "We can do it!" Ment

• sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Mention the idea of lowering the population on Earth to allow more resources per person or consuming less to pollute less and it's "It's against human nature" and "Absolutely impossible" and "Fusion or fission will make that unnecessary, we should grow forever." Eugenics is edgy and the idea deserves an edgy death. I hate to give a glib dismissal, but what else is there to say on that topic? No one can do it short of becoming the next AI overlord empire. It's like wishing for anti-gravity. It'd be quite convenient, but how? We've also seen how well China's "one child per family" mandate worked out, so we even have evidence that it doesn't seem to work. I almost don't want to entertain the question due to the trainwreck of a thread that might ensue, but I've been pleasantly surprised by HN before. I think prompting can make the difference. So: If we all promise to be very substantive, how might it be possible to implement "population control"? This is probably the ultimate test of self-control, too. Can intellectualism prevail over the urge to strike down an idea? Let's find out. You'll need to be very substantive in your response if you're to have any hope of thoughtful conversation, so please don't put in a halfhearted effort into the opportunity of your choosing. Everyone's listening -- what do you propose?
  • protonfish 9y ago
    Except we already see negative population growth in all countries with a reasonable standard of living. The USA (and many European countries) would not be growing were it not for immigration. Places with high birth rates are often correlated with a stressful environment like war and extreme poverty. (When you can't be certain how much time you have left to live or how many of your children will survive, it makes sense to have any many children as soon as possible.) Also, the efforts against access to birth control by organizations like the Catholic Church or Texas's "abstinence only education" can unnaturally increase birth rates. Reducing population growth is the struggle to reduce poverty, war, and oppression against women. We also would need to confront powerful organizations with anti-birth control agendas.
    • lukas099 9y ago
      Surely you mean negative change in population growth?
      • protonfish 9y ago
        No, I don't. Negative population growth is when the population growth is less than one per person.
• Anonymous107747 9y ago
  I think that you're missing the point. Your comment implies that you think colonization efforts are solely to solve resource problems on Earth. The most important point of colonization is that it ensures no single event can wipe out humanity. Rather than encouraging lowering the population of Earth, we want it to increase. The larger Earth's population, the more people who will volunteer to join colonies. We need to spread humanity as far and wide. As for the attainability of colonization, I expect that it is a matter of time. As is often brought up, it was once thought that flight was unachievable; and now we send out thousands of flights every day. For now, attempting to harvest near-Earth resources seems to be the best approach to colonization. It requires many of the same advances while providing a strong short-term incentive.
  • gehwartzen 9y ago
    Why is it so important to spread humanity far and wide? And why would it be bad if humans went extinct sometime in the distant future?
    • hollerith 9y ago
      Well, a person can care about dozens of separate things. It does not take much of a commitment to a thing to have conversations with others interested in the thing or to write about it on the internet. (And over the years, a small commitment to something can grow.) If you meant to ask, "why should I care . . .," then I hope you will excuse me if I leave that one unanswered.
      • gehwartzen 9y ago
        I suppose I'm asking why should we, in general sense, should care; i.e what is the philosophical argument. I agree human suffering is bad but if we are all to die "instantly" (relative to out overall time in existence as a species) I'm not sure I see the argument for why that would be bad. The other argument I suppose is that the universe itself would somehow suffer if we were not in it, but again I'm not sure I fully understand the rationale.
• tomjen3 9y ago
  Going to Mars is desirable, at least to some people. Genocide (and you need that to bring the population down, restricting births is not unless you are willing to wait about sixty years) is very much not.
• dgudkov 9y ago
  The problem with lowering the population is that it would lead to slowing technical progress as well. The fewer humans we have the fewer high-IQ humans are born, the less is advance in science and technology. One of the major benefits of space colonization is to increase human population so that it produces more high-IQ people that can keep advancing humanity. All that progress in the last 200 years can be attributed to larger amount of high-IQ people born which is a direct consequence of total population growth. Stopping growing population would lead to stagnation in technical progress.
• lxmorj 9y ago
  One is something you can do, the other is something you have to prevent everyone from doing...