4 ms·

So following this reasoning, the entire continent of Africa, most of Asia, and most of South America should have massive amounts of people so they can reach pro

So following this reasoning, the entire continent of Africa, most of Asia, and most of South America should have massive amounts of people so they can reach prosperity? Sorry. Not buying it. Growth is an ok thing as it happens, but as populations increase demand for resources such as land and water produce pressures that only get worse with more people. There's a reason you can sell a parking spot in Hong Kong for half a million dollars but can buy a lot of land in Canada or something for next to nothing. China was wrong to stop the 1-child policy. I'd like to see it implemented globally. Along with that I'd like to far reduce immigration to the United States (I'm just using the US as an example since I currently live here) as I don't want to see the population continue to grow. In the long run, population growth is good for me as a property owner and somebody with wealth, as prices on things like water and homes won't affect me, but I'm not selfish and I want people to not have to struggle to obtain basic resources or housing.

EliRivers 9y ago
So following this reasoning, the entire continent of Africa, most of Asia, and most of South America should have massive amounts of people so they can reach prosperity? I don't think that's what topspin said. Topspin said prosperity stops population growth. Topspin did not say that population growth causes prosperity. "Growth!", as topspin puts it, is not the same thing as population growth. it's my understanding that as peoples become richer, they have fewer children [1]. That's the cause and effect I believe Topspin was highlighting. Having fewer children does not cause a people to become rich. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
- muninn_ 9y ago
  Sure. I didn't interpret it that way but that's fine. I still think we need fewer people and we really need to find a way to get something like the 1-child policy reimplemented in high growth areas. Especially if we're going to sit on our hands with respect to global warming. An increase in the number of people leads to an increase in the consumption of resources. Unless we're adding more people that produce more resources than they consume, we're causing a problem with a sustainable civilization. We need lower numbers of people concentrated in different areas, and much more of the planet returned to nature and to be used for mining, natural parks, sustainable farming, and entertainment (skiing etc...). Going to the national parks is already getting more difficult each year. Home prices aren't going to go down unless something bad happens, as more people move in. The price of water is already artificially low. I could go on and on. And to add, it's a problem that wealthy people aren't having children, because they are in the best position to educate and provide for them.
  - gorkonsine 9y ago
    I disagree with some of this. First, we don't need more mining, we need much less, preferably zero. We've extracted enough resources from the earth's crust, and mining has a huge environmental toll. We should be doing a far better job recycling, and we should be getting the rest from asteroids or the Moon. (I'll make exceptions for some things which are literally as common as dirt, such as silicates/sand/etc., though even here there's some problems with overconsumption.) More people don't necessarily need to consume more resources. We should be living more sustainably, with less consumption per person. Living the way a typical suburban American lives is totally unsustainable, and grossly wasteful. We need to have smaller habitats in large, shared buildings (i.e. we should be living in urban high-rises, but well-built ones, not like those crappy ones in the UK), and we shouldn't have personally-owned vehicles, and instead should be using SkyTran PRT to get around quickly and cheaply with very low energy usage. Note that I'm all for the option of ownership of those housing units, just that we need more condos and fewer standalone houses; renting property has its own set of problems. As for home prices, the main problem there is that investors are allowed to buy residential property. Ban that, and especially ban ownership by foreigners, and that'll fix that problem quickly. Housing prices have been inflated because of too much "investment" by various moneyed interests, such as wealthy foreigners looking for stable places to park their money outside their own country. This isn't helpful to the people who actually live in a place, as they're now competing with a huge number of outsiders (both inside and outside their country) when bidding on a housing unit to buy. This phenomenon simply didn't exist in the US a few decades or more ago. Vancouver Canada I believe recently enacted a law penalizing house owners who didn't actually make use of the house, as so many houses were sitting empty, owned by Chinese investors. As to wealthy people having children, that's a non-sequitur: wealthy people are such a small portion of the population that even if they all had 6 kids, it wouldn't make a detectable difference. It's the middle class that you want having kids.
    - muninn_ 9y ago
      > First, we don't need more mining, we need much less, preferably zero. I don't disagree. We will have some mining forever though, whether that's here on earth or elsewhere. > We should be living more sustainably, with less consumption per person. I hope I didn't give you the impression that I think the opposite of that. I am all for sustainability. Including population sustainability. > As to wealthy people having children, that's a non-sequitur: wealthy people are such a small portion of the population that even if they all had 6 kids, it wouldn't make a detectable difference. It's the middle class that you want having kids. ? I want fewer kids and fewer people. I want those with the means to (rich or upper middle class) to have kids, at least until we get the population of the planet much lower. So yes, a small amount of people having a few kids isn't a non-sequitur at all. > No POVs Dude/dude-ette... you should read my posts! I'm all for that :) Thanks for your perspective.

EliRivers 9y ago

So following this reasoning, the entire continent of Africa, most of Asia, and most of South America should have massive amounts of people so they can reach prosperity? I don't think that's what topspin said. Topspin said prosperity stops population growth. Topspin did not say that population growth causes prosperity. "Growth!", as topspin puts it, is not the same thing as population growth. it's my understanding that as peoples become richer, they have fewer children [1]. That's the cause and effect I believe Topspin was highlighting. Having fewer children does not cause a people to become rich. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

muninn_ 9y ago
Sure. I didn't interpret it that way but that's fine. I still think we need fewer people and we really need to find a way to get something like the 1-child policy reimplemented in high growth areas. Especially if we're going to sit on our hands with respect to global warming. An increase in the number of people leads to an increase in the consumption of resources. Unless we're adding more people that produce more resources than they consume, we're causing a problem with a sustainable civilization. We need lower numbers of people concentrated in different areas, and much more of the planet returned to nature and to be used for mining, natural parks, sustainable farming, and entertainment (skiing etc...). Going to the national parks is already getting more difficult each year. Home prices aren't going to go down unless something bad happens, as more people move in. The price of water is already artificially low. I could go on and on. And to add, it's a problem that wealthy people aren't having children, because they are in the best position to educate and provide for them.
- gorkonsine 9y ago
  I disagree with some of this. First, we don't need more mining, we need much less, preferably zero. We've extracted enough resources from the earth's crust, and mining has a huge environmental toll. We should be doing a far better job recycling, and we should be getting the rest from asteroids or the Moon. (I'll make exceptions for some things which are literally as common as dirt, such as silicates/sand/etc., though even here there's some problems with overconsumption.) More people don't necessarily need to consume more resources. We should be living more sustainably, with less consumption per person. Living the way a typical suburban American lives is totally unsustainable, and grossly wasteful. We need to have smaller habitats in large, shared buildings (i.e. we should be living in urban high-rises, but well-built ones, not like those crappy ones in the UK), and we shouldn't have personally-owned vehicles, and instead should be using SkyTran PRT to get around quickly and cheaply with very low energy usage. Note that I'm all for the option of ownership of those housing units, just that we need more condos and fewer standalone houses; renting property has its own set of problems. As for home prices, the main problem there is that investors are allowed to buy residential property. Ban that, and especially ban ownership by foreigners, and that'll fix that problem quickly. Housing prices have been inflated because of too much "investment" by various moneyed interests, such as wealthy foreigners looking for stable places to park their money outside their own country. This isn't helpful to the people who actually live in a place, as they're now competing with a huge number of outsiders (both inside and outside their country) when bidding on a housing unit to buy. This phenomenon simply didn't exist in the US a few decades or more ago. Vancouver Canada I believe recently enacted a law penalizing house owners who didn't actually make use of the house, as so many houses were sitting empty, owned by Chinese investors. As to wealthy people having children, that's a non-sequitur: wealthy people are such a small portion of the population that even if they all had 6 kids, it wouldn't make a detectable difference. It's the middle class that you want having kids.
  - muninn_ 9y ago
    > First, we don't need more mining, we need much less, preferably zero. I don't disagree. We will have some mining forever though, whether that's here on earth or elsewhere. > We should be living more sustainably, with less consumption per person. I hope I didn't give you the impression that I think the opposite of that. I am all for sustainability. Including population sustainability. > As to wealthy people having children, that's a non-sequitur: wealthy people are such a small portion of the population that even if they all had 6 kids, it wouldn't make a detectable difference. It's the middle class that you want having kids. ? I want fewer kids and fewer people. I want those with the means to (rich or upper middle class) to have kids, at least until we get the population of the planet much lower. So yes, a small amount of people having a few kids isn't a non-sequitur at all. > No POVs Dude/dude-ette... you should read my posts! I'm all for that :) Thanks for your perspective.