5 ms·

"...Instead, says Hillman, the world’s population must globally move to zero emissions across agriculture, air travel, shipping, heating homes – every aspect of

"...Instead, says Hillman, the world’s population must globally move to zero emissions across agriculture, air travel, shipping, heating homes – every aspect of our economy – and reduce our human population too..." That's quite breathtaking. "Reducing human population" is a phrase that can only have so many meanings: controlling reproduction, removing access to healthcare, or killing people. There are no other options I'm aware of. You can go to just about any physics site and see lists of things physicists still don't understand. Some of them are so far out in the woods that they're even debating the role of empiricism and the scientific method. (If the math looks good, and we could never perform an experiment, isn't that good enough?) Yet here we have an expert in the social sciences suggesting we do something about having too many humans. Hillman has had a fine career. I wish him the best in his continued efforts. Articles like this exist to praise people of note, also to poke at folks like me who might find some of their statement a bit over-the-top. Better to generate controversy and readership. But we really need a more serious discussion on climate. Not pandering to the end-of-world folks, not pandering to the "nothing to see here, folks". Something substantive. There's a lot of religious and magical thinking in climate science, many times by people who would consider themselves uber rationalists. (They're the worst). The vast majority of the public has had about enough of the extremists and self-promoters. There may be an opportunity to start a reasoned discussion.

FranzFerdiNaN 9y ago
There won't be a substantive discussion about it (at least not by the people who can actively do something about it), because capitalism won't allow it until it's too late. Sure, politicians will talk a lot about how we should really, any day now, start reducing our carbon output, but ask them to actually implement strict measures and the silence is deafening. Then we have corporations, like oil companies, who for many decades suppressed information and actively tried to distort public discussion about climate change. We have politicians who are either in the pocket of corporations or who support an ideology that opposes them even acknowledging the existence of climate change (or denying the role of humans), as that would hurt stock markets and shareholder profits in the short term. And we have consumers (people aren't really citizens anymore, but consumers first and foremost thanks to capitalism) who are bombarded daily with things they should buy to improve their lives, and who thus refuse to give up things like flying or meat or cheap clothes from the other side of the world. Combine it all and you get the frog that's being slowly boiled (except the frog is smart enough to get out in time).
- DanielBMarkham 9y ago
  We may disagree on these things. Reasonable people disagree about things. But it seems we share a desire for substantive discussion. Take a look at my original comment which says that it's time to start talking. Currently it's at -2. Sound public policy-making is preconditioned on people of diverse opinions talking through issues. Nobody gets what they want, but everybody gets something. We reach some sort of local maxima. If the mob rule that currently plagues the internet has their way, this is going to permanently disappear. That's fucked. I remain convinced that people of differing opinions can accomplish great things -- but not in an environment like this. Far too many people are eager to identify the good guys and bad guys (and reward and punish them appropriately) and far too few people are eager to actually listen to one another.
pjc50 9y ago
Voluntary control of reproduction is one of the great success stories of the 20th century; we just need to expand it to those few places where it's not regarded as an important right. We should replicate the work of Bangladesh: http://www.futurehealthsystems.org/news/2013/11/25/understanding-the-bangladesh-health-miracle.html http://www.futurehealthsystems.org/news/2013/11/25/understan... "Bangladesh has achieved high (62%) contraceptive prevalence and a rapid fall in fertility from 6.3 births per woman in 1971 to 2.3 in 2010—a rate unparalleled in other countries with similar levels of development."
- jessaustin 9y ago
  So Bangladesh will be spared the violent intervention, for now. What are we going to do with all those "other countries"? If you're proposing more aid or whatever, that's fine. But others in this thread are talking about "the end of civilisation". If that's the false dichotomy we accept, is the war media really going to be satisfied with just more aid?
- PeterisP 9y ago
  2.3 is approximately the replacement rate, it's stopping growth but not reducing the population. With zero growth we'd still be as much a cause of climate change as we are now; a Japan-like population decrease (if achieved everywhere) might cause a meaningful decrease in multiple centuries, but we don't have multiple centuries. Voluntary control of reproduction is a nice thing, but it won't achieve population reduction, it will only stop/limit growth.
- jbond23 9y ago
  http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/bangladesh-population/ http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/bangladesh-pop... It looks like at least part of Bangla Desh's small reduction in absolute growth in population in recent years is due to emigration. Numbers leaving are about 1/3 the size of the total growth. So actual growth has been consistently over +2m/yr since 1975. Like a lot of other places round the world that looks like 4 to 5 decades of linear growth.
garblegarble 9y ago
> controlling reproduction, removing access to healthcare, or killing people. There are no other options I'm aware of. Education of women, better access to contraceptives, etc.[1] reduce the birth rate of a country which I suspect is what he's referring to. 1: complex issue, http://blogs.worldbank.org/health/female-education-and-childbearing-closer-look-data http://blogs.worldbank.org/health/female-education-and-child... as a starting point
bpizzi 9y ago
> "Reducing human population" is a phrase that can only have so many meanings: controlling reproduction, removing access to healthcare, or killing people. There are no other options I'm aware of. Well, you forgot sending humans away from earth.
- bryanrasmussen 9y ago
  given current possibilities that is another term for killing people.
  - bpizzi 9y ago
    Yet it's still a path worth being followed for its long term effects.
  - chopin 9y ago
    But not very efficient at that...
- PeterisP 9y ago
  Not really. Sending humans away from earth takes more resources than simply sustaining them here and negating/countering all their environmental effects with expensive measures; we can send some humans away from earth, but that's not a meaningful way to solve overpopulation causing a strain on resources.
sparkzilla 9y ago
It's Eugenics by another name; where only the anointed should inherit the earth.
rospaya 9y ago
> That's quite breathtaking. "Reducing human population" is a phrase that can only have so many meanings: controlling reproduction, removing access to healthcare, or killing people. There are no other options I'm aware of. Education, better healthcare, better access to birth control? Making people have less children doesn't have to be at gunpoint or forced in any way.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  No, this will not reduce human population to the extent to meaningfully influence climate change, and definitely not fast enough. If education, better healthcare, better access to birth control would reduce every place to a below-replacement rate such as Japan, it would still not make any large difference within this century. If you're talking about reducing population as a means of affecting climate change, then this means a larger/quicker decrease in population than what can be possible with reasonable means; if we'd somehow decide that we'd have to get to, say, 4 billion or below by 2100, then that requires either drastic reductions in reproduction or mass slaughter.
dredmorbius 9y ago
Population control has two primary modes: Endogenous and exogenous. If humans don't regulate their own numbers (humanely or otherwise), the Horsemen shall ride, as they always have. You're both providing a false dichotomy / excluding options, and appealing to consequences.

FranzFerdiNaN 9y ago

There won't be a substantive discussion about it (at least not by the people who can actively do something about it), because capitalism won't allow it until it's too late. Sure, politicians will talk a lot about how we should really, any day now, start reducing our carbon output, but ask them to actually implement strict measures and the silence is deafening. Then we have corporations, like oil companies, who for many decades suppressed information and actively tried to distort public discussion about climate change. We have politicians who are either in the pocket of corporations or who support an ideology that opposes them even acknowledging the existence of climate change (or denying the role of humans), as that would hurt stock markets and shareholder profits in the short term. And we have consumers (people aren't really citizens anymore, but consumers first and foremost thanks to capitalism) who are bombarded daily with things they should buy to improve their lives, and who thus refuse to give up things like flying or meat or cheap clothes from the other side of the world. Combine it all and you get the frog that's being slowly boiled (except the frog is smart enough to get out in time).

DanielBMarkham 9y ago
We may disagree on these things. Reasonable people disagree about things. But it seems we share a desire for substantive discussion. Take a look at my original comment which says that it's time to start talking. Currently it's at -2. Sound public policy-making is preconditioned on people of diverse opinions talking through issues. Nobody gets what they want, but everybody gets something. We reach some sort of local maxima. If the mob rule that currently plagues the internet has their way, this is going to permanently disappear. That's fucked. I remain convinced that people of differing opinions can accomplish great things -- but not in an environment like this. Far too many people are eager to identify the good guys and bad guys (and reward and punish them appropriately) and far too few people are eager to actually listen to one another.

pjc50 9y ago

Voluntary control of reproduction is one of the great success stories of the 20th century; we just need to expand it to those few places where it's not regarded as an important right. We should replicate the work of Bangladesh: http://www.futurehealthsystems.org/news/2013/11/25/understanding-the-bangladesh-health-miracle.html http://www.futurehealthsystems.org/news/2013/11/25/understan... "Bangladesh has achieved high (62%) contraceptive prevalence and a rapid fall in fertility from 6.3 births per woman in 1971 to 2.3 in 2010—a rate unparalleled in other countries with similar levels of development."

jessaustin 9y ago
So Bangladesh will be spared the violent intervention, for now. What are we going to do with all those "other countries"? If you're proposing more aid or whatever, that's fine. But others in this thread are talking about "the end of civilisation". If that's the false dichotomy we accept, is the war media really going to be satisfied with just more aid?
PeterisP 9y ago
2.3 is approximately the replacement rate, it's stopping growth but not reducing the population. With zero growth we'd still be as much a cause of climate change as we are now; a Japan-like population decrease (if achieved everywhere) might cause a meaningful decrease in multiple centuries, but we don't have multiple centuries. Voluntary control of reproduction is a nice thing, but it won't achieve population reduction, it will only stop/limit growth.
jbond23 9y ago
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/bangladesh-population/ http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/bangladesh-pop... It looks like at least part of Bangla Desh's small reduction in absolute growth in population in recent years is due to emigration. Numbers leaving are about 1/3 the size of the total growth. So actual growth has been consistently over +2m/yr since 1975. Like a lot of other places round the world that looks like 4 to 5 decades of linear growth.

garblegarble 9y ago

> controlling reproduction, removing access to healthcare, or killing people. There are no other options I'm aware of. Education of women, better access to contraceptives, etc.[1] reduce the birth rate of a country which I suspect is what he's referring to. 1: complex issue, http://blogs.worldbank.org/health/female-education-and-childbearing-closer-look-data http://blogs.worldbank.org/health/female-education-and-child... as a starting point

bpizzi 9y ago

> "Reducing human population" is a phrase that can only have so many meanings: controlling reproduction, removing access to healthcare, or killing people. There are no other options I'm aware of. Well, you forgot sending humans away from earth.

bryanrasmussen 9y ago
given current possibilities that is another term for killing people.
- bpizzi 9y ago
  Yet it's still a path worth being followed for its long term effects.
- chopin 9y ago
  But not very efficient at that...
PeterisP 9y ago
Not really. Sending humans away from earth takes more resources than simply sustaining them here and negating/countering all their environmental effects with expensive measures; we can send some humans away from earth, but that's not a meaningful way to solve overpopulation causing a strain on resources.

sparkzilla 9y ago

It's Eugenics by another name; where only the anointed should inherit the earth.

rospaya 9y ago

> That's quite breathtaking. "Reducing human population" is a phrase that can only have so many meanings: controlling reproduction, removing access to healthcare, or killing people. There are no other options I'm aware of. Education, better healthcare, better access to birth control? Making people have less children doesn't have to be at gunpoint or forced in any way.

PeterisP 9y ago
No, this will not reduce human population to the extent to meaningfully influence climate change, and definitely not fast enough. If education, better healthcare, better access to birth control would reduce every place to a below-replacement rate such as Japan, it would still not make any large difference within this century. If you're talking about reducing population as a means of affecting climate change, then this means a larger/quicker decrease in population than what can be possible with reasonable means; if we'd somehow decide that we'd have to get to, say, 4 billion or below by 2100, then that requires either drastic reductions in reproduction or mass slaughter.

dredmorbius 9y ago

Population control has two primary modes: Endogenous and exogenous. If humans don't regulate their own numbers (humanely or otherwise), the Horsemen shall ride, as they always have. You're both providing a false dichotomy / excluding options, and appealing to consequences.