3 ms·

IF we are taking about the end of the human race, which is in fact a possibility if we continue with the current trends, then anything that could curb human app

IF we are taking about the end of the human race, which is in fact a possibility if we continue with the current trends, then anything that could curb human appetites and populations is free game IMO. People don’t realize what’s at stake. Interpret that how you like.

blotter_paper 8y ago
Okay, so we're talking about genocide not as an acceptable loss in exchange for sound environmental policy but rather as an environmental policy in its own right through its active reduction in the number of living humans. Glad we cleared that up. What do you think the chances of us having a lively planet in 200 years are without your proposed mass killings? What is your ideal target number for how many humans would be left after a purge, and how does it affect your guesstimates for how likely our planet is to survive? If you're willing to suggest mass killings, I suspect that you've given those sorts of questions some thought. It would be hard to justify mass killings if you didn't have some strong opinions about how likely ecological armageddon is in both scenarios. Edit: typo.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  It seems like the worst kind of optimism to think that your cozy way of life can be preserved while also saving the planet. Electric cars and trendy vegan diets aren't good enough. You should give the arguments of deep ecologists like Linkola serious consideration, not dismiss them out of hand as unsavory. Another note: Anti-Malthusians (including a few prominent HN posters who might show up in this thread when they wake up this morning), are always quick to gleefully point out that we haven't run out of food in no small part thanks to the development of synthetic fertilizer. What they loath to mention is the ecological impact of massive population growth, and the fact that humanity has already surpassed ecosystem's carrying capacity when you consider ecological impact.

blotter_paper 8y ago

Okay, so we're talking about genocide not as an acceptable loss in exchange for sound environmental policy but rather as an environmental policy in its own right through its active reduction in the number of living humans. Glad we cleared that up. What do you think the chances of us having a lively planet in 200 years are without your proposed mass killings? What is your ideal target number for how many humans would be left after a purge, and how does it affect your guesstimates for how likely our planet is to survive? If you're willing to suggest mass killings, I suspect that you've given those sorts of questions some thought. It would be hard to justify mass killings if you didn't have some strong opinions about how likely ecological armageddon is in both scenarios. Edit: typo.

darkpuma 8y ago
It seems like the worst kind of optimism to think that your cozy way of life can be preserved while also saving the planet. Electric cars and trendy vegan diets aren't good enough. You should give the arguments of deep ecologists like Linkola serious consideration, not dismiss them out of hand as unsavory. Another note: Anti-Malthusians (including a few prominent HN posters who might show up in this thread when they wake up this morning), are always quick to gleefully point out that we haven't run out of food in no small part thanks to the development of synthetic fertilizer. What they loath to mention is the ecological impact of massive population growth, and the fact that humanity has already surpassed ecosystem's carrying capacity when you consider ecological impact.