5 ms·

Sometimes I think our only options going forward are a world where all natural habitat has been completely decimated, or an eco-fascist regime enforces pollutio

Sometimes I think our only options going forward are a world where all natural habitat has been completely decimated, or an eco-fascist regime enforces pollution (and thus effectively population) control on the whole planet.

throw564d 8y ago
This seems to me one topic where HN has its head jammed firmly in the sand - population control goes against its dogma, yet unrestrained fertility will likely destroy the planet but hey, we had 50% female engineers for 2 weeks before the polar caps melted!
kakaorka 8y ago
I think you should watch the Handmaid’s Tale; it will make you never suggest your latter suggestion again :)
- benj111 8y ago
  It was a book originally. Plus that's kind of the opposite of what you're talking about, as most of the women are infertile.
  - Ntrails 8y ago
    The point of the book isn't the fertility, it's the fascism. When you're doing something abhorrent that is, of course, supposed to save the world/species - that doesn't actually make it ok
nnq 8y ago
> a world where all natural habitat has been completely decimated That's probably the way we'll have it, but there will be artificial-natural habitat, eg. "reservations", that could grow to even be country-sized or half-continent-sized if we manage resources right. (Though probably they'll be smaller since we're going to have to some pretty large scale heavily-engineered-and-very-unnatural-agriculture to prevent famine in the face of climate degradation.) The second option sounds somewhat enticing... but it would likely severely diminish speed of technological progress, hence diminish our even-longer-term changes of survival (think encounter and warfare with alien civs etc. - the universe is huge and if we/our-mostly-artificial-descendants survive long enough we'll have to compete with strains of life much more virulent than ourselves today).
- makerofspoons 8y ago
  There is reason to believe we may have already hit peak farmland or may in the near future: http://freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/why-peak-farmland-is-good-news/ http://freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/why-peak-farmland-is-good... https://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2015/05/26/peak-farmland-is-coming-closer-thanks-to-cow-free-milk/#20684ea75842 https://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2015/05/26/peak-far...
  - ForHackernews 8y ago
    Lots of current farmland is due to become unproductive with climate change, so we'd better hope we don't need as much.
- eseehausen 8y ago
  If the only thing stopping the structural changes necessary to prevent ecological collapse was a fear of aliens, then I think we'd be doing better. Also, the kind of technological delay you're talking about there would be a couple of decades at most, when it looks like you're talking about thinking in terms of centuries. If anything, we're slowing down necessary technological advances to maintain the status quo long past the point where it's tenable.
noir_lord 8y ago
I’ve seen that called the Garden Earth.
Nasrudith 8y ago
Really totallitaranism for "a good cause" is an incredibly dangerous fiction. Communism was essentially that fiction "for the workers" all they got out of that was torture and death. The object of power is power and any claims of a cause are illusions and deceptions. React accordingly.
- ericdykstra 8y ago
  I used "eco-fascism" just because it's really the only somewhat mainstream movement that argues for ecological diversity preservation at all. There are potential forms of alternative or third position government structures that allow for just as much or more personal freedom than current democracies, and yet can preserve our natural ecology. It just requires an accounting of destruction of commons, where untouched biodiversity is valued by the people of the state. If we have the power to absolutely destroy the natural environment, we also have the power to protect its beauty for future generations rather than selfishly destroy the earth.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
someguydave 8y ago
That was literally the Nazi's plan, you realize: http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.htm...
- literallee 8y ago
  Oh, pish posh. You’re just promulgating some agitprop created to besmirch the reputation of environmentalism, so that polluters fishing for an excuse can find a way to connect the dots and Godwin an ecological conversation.
  - aaaaaaass 8y ago
    pretentious words...
ams6110 8y ago
Those are ridiculously extreme alternatives.
- ericdykstra 8y ago
  We're currently well on our way to the first alternative, and I don't know if we can find a way out of it without the second "Climate change" is a red herring; we can "fix" the increasing temperature problem and yet deforestation, pollution, and overpopulation will still destroy every natural ecosystem on the planet.

throw564d 8y ago

This seems to me one topic where HN has its head jammed firmly in the sand - population control goes against its dogma, yet unrestrained fertility will likely destroy the planet but hey, we had 50% female engineers for 2 weeks before the polar caps melted!

kakaorka 8y ago

I think you should watch the Handmaid’s Tale; it will make you never suggest your latter suggestion again :)

benj111 8y ago
It was a book originally. Plus that's kind of the opposite of what you're talking about, as most of the women are infertile.
- Ntrails 8y ago
  The point of the book isn't the fertility, it's the fascism. When you're doing something abhorrent that is, of course, supposed to save the world/species - that doesn't actually make it ok

nnq 8y ago

> a world where all natural habitat has been completely decimated That's probably the way we'll have it, but there will be artificial-natural habitat, eg. "reservations", that could grow to even be country-sized or half-continent-sized if we manage resources right. (Though probably they'll be smaller since we're going to have to some pretty large scale heavily-engineered-and-very-unnatural-agriculture to prevent famine in the face of climate degradation.) The second option sounds somewhat enticing... but it would likely severely diminish speed of technological progress, hence diminish our even-longer-term changes of survival (think encounter and warfare with alien civs etc. - the universe is huge and if we/our-mostly-artificial-descendants survive long enough we'll have to compete with strains of life much more virulent than ourselves today).

makerofspoons 8y ago
There is reason to believe we may have already hit peak farmland or may in the near future: http://freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/why-peak-farmland-is-good-news/ http://freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/why-peak-farmland-is-good... https://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2015/05/26/peak-farmland-is-coming-closer-thanks-to-cow-free-milk/#20684ea75842 https://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2015/05/26/peak-far...
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  Lots of current farmland is due to become unproductive with climate change, so we'd better hope we don't need as much.
eseehausen 8y ago
If the only thing stopping the structural changes necessary to prevent ecological collapse was a fear of aliens, then I think we'd be doing better. Also, the kind of technological delay you're talking about there would be a couple of decades at most, when it looks like you're talking about thinking in terms of centuries. If anything, we're slowing down necessary technological advances to maintain the status quo long past the point where it's tenable.

noir_lord 8y ago

I’ve seen that called the Garden Earth.

Nasrudith 8y ago

Really totallitaranism for "a good cause" is an incredibly dangerous fiction. Communism was essentially that fiction "for the workers" all they got out of that was torture and death. The object of power is power and any claims of a cause are illusions and deceptions. React accordingly.

ericdykstra 8y ago
I used "eco-fascism" just because it's really the only somewhat mainstream movement that argues for ecological diversity preservation at all. There are potential forms of alternative or third position government structures that allow for just as much or more personal freedom than current democracies, and yet can preserve our natural ecology. It just requires an accounting of destruction of commons, where untouched biodiversity is valued by the people of the state. If we have the power to absolutely destroy the natural environment, we also have the power to protect its beauty for future generations rather than selfishly destroy the earth.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

someguydave 8y ago

That was literally the Nazi's plan, you realize: http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.htm...

literallee 8y ago
Oh, pish posh. You’re just promulgating some agitprop created to besmirch the reputation of environmentalism, so that polluters fishing for an excuse can find a way to connect the dots and Godwin an ecological conversation.
- aaaaaaass 8y ago
  pretentious words...

ams6110 8y ago

Those are ridiculously extreme alternatives.

ericdykstra 8y ago
We're currently well on our way to the first alternative, and I don't know if we can find a way out of it without the second "Climate change" is a red herring; we can "fix" the increasing temperature problem and yet deforestation, pollution, and overpopulation will still destroy every natural ecosystem on the planet.