4 ms·
Don't worry about the insects, see the last quote: As the scent of 82 proof alcohol that preserves the bugs wafted, just a little, through the room, a reporter
by ptha 9y ago
Don't worry about the insects, see the last quote: As the scent of 82 proof alcohol that preserves the bugs wafted, just a little, through the room, a reporter asked if, at this rate, all the insects were going to disappear. “Oh, don’t worry,” said Mr. Sorg, the wasp expert. “All the vertebrates will die before that.”
However, agreeing that we are indeed hastening the next mass extinction, might be a good start to avoiding/postponing it.
- QAPereo 9y agoThe only way is population control, and how does that work outside of nightmares and cautionary tales from history? Great Filter here we come.
- jdc0589 9y agoits really hard to have a serious conversation about population control. It's just one of those topics that immediately label you as some kind of crazy murdering nut-job in the eyes of lots of people. Honestly, it may not have been super effective for certain reasons, but China's child limit laws are about the least crazy solution I can think of.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y agoPopulation control probably isn't necessary. No one (informed) thinks that the human population is going to grow out of control. It's likely to become stable at around 10-11 billion within 100 years. Birth rates are declining in developed countries and the undeveloped world is rapidly developing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
- QAPereo 9y agoIt isn’t necessary only if massive inequality persists, and our tech just plain saves us all. What a crazy fucking bet when the stakes are the future of human civilization.
- darkmarmot 9y agoHonestly, evolution says that it won't. Long-term, breeders will "out-compete" those that limit their household size. Without external political forces or wholesale genetic engineering, we're in for a rough ride.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- shezi 9y agoThere are various examples where breeders did not outcompete, and instead a population settled on a low birth rate. Any animal that is not predator-dominated, really, but the best-known examples are New Zealands Kakapo [1] and Panda bears [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakapo#Breeding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakapo#Breeding [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda#Reproduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda#Reproduction
- ptha 9y agoHans Rosling has done some research and ted talks about this: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_...
- mac01021 9y ago> stable at around 10-11 billion within 100 years but is that small enough or soon enough to avoid environmental catastrophe?
- CaptSpify 9y agoI think many people probably like the idea, but are worried about implementation. Example: I think everyone should be sterilized at birth, but it should be reversible at no cost to them. But I can't think of a single government that I'd trust to enact this policy correctly without falling into a Eugenics system.
- 7952 9y agoSurely that is an argument about how resources should be allocated? Should resources go to a large number of poorer people or a smaller number of more wealthy people? Also, the catch is that development tends to reduce population growth. India (for example) may be growing rapidly now, but if they succeed in eliminating poverty then population will stabalise at some point. People will simply have fewer kids. So why not just wait until population stabalises naturally?
- QAPereo 9y agoWe don’t really have until “some point” especially when Indians and Chinese people all understandably want a slice of what the West largely has hoarded; luxury. Spread that over 7-11 billion and we’re just screwed barring miraculous new tech. Granted that people want and probably deserve roughly equal lives, the only viable solution is to spread the resources out over fewer people.