7 ms·

Work is optional. There are plenty of people who get by without it. Doesn't mean they're doing well or healthy. And for society to continue to function having c

by sidlls 8y ago

Work is optional. There are plenty of people who get by without it. Doesn't mean they're doing well or healthy. And for society to continue to function having children is actually not optional.

jolmg 8y ago
> Work is optional. There are plenty of people who get by without it. Doesn't mean they're doing well or healthy. Except if you don't have a kid, you have better chances of staying well and healthy. That's the whole point. That's what is meant with parenthood being optional and work not. > And for society to continue to function having children is actually not optional. With the rate at which world population is increasing[1], I think the opposite is true. It wasn't that long ago that we reached a world population of 7 billion. Now, we're apparently more than halfway to 8 billion. How in the world can the earth support so many of us? Yesterday, there was a post here that talked about the absolutely brutal conditions that we're raising livestock in[2]. We wouldn't need to be so god damn efficient in working livestock if we didn't have so many mouths to feed. [1] http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19743006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19743006
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  Well, if everyone stopped having kids effective immediately, we could have the population issue solved very quickly. Along with all our other problems, too, after a few decades of suffering.
- gilleain 8y ago
  7 billion, not trillion
  - jolmg 8y ago
    :P Thanks. Fun Fact I learned from that link: Supposedly, we'll be reaching our first trillion sometime between 2050 and 2060. That's actually pretty close.
    - perl4ever 8y ago
      If the world population is 7 billion now and will be 1,000 billion around 2055, then by my math (142.9^(1/36)) that's a growth rate of 14.8% a year. Since the current growth rate is (based on the first few hits on Google) a little over 1%, I wonder why someone would expect it to go up that drastically. Especially with global warming and everything.
      - jolmg 8y ago
        You're right[1]. I should've checked a better source. > Especially with global warming and everything. Yes, you're also right about that. I just didn't want to throw global warming into the mix. [1] https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/ https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/
    - intuitionist 8y ago
      That is neither fun nor a fact. Current UN projections put us on track for 9 billion in 2050, and we’ll top out at 11 or 12 billion in the early 22nd century: https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/world-population-prospects-the-2017-revision.html https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/world-popul...
      - jolmg 8y ago
        The fun was sarcasm, but you're right. I should have checked better sources.
      - quickthrower2 8y ago
        Pro tip: Fun facts are never fun, and pro tips are for ametuers.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- Rescis 8y ago
  To start, we are at 7.53 /billion/, not trillion. Second, ever single time someone has said that overpopulation was going to be the end of us, they've been wrong. To quote Wikipedia, which go so far back as Ancient Carthage and Greece: Concern about overpopulation is an ancient topic. Tertullian was a resident of the city of Carthage in the second century CE, when the population of the world was about 190 million (only 3–4% of what it is today). He notably said: "What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint) is our teeming population. Our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly support us.... In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race." Before that, Plato, Aristotle and others broached the topic as well. [1] Finally, to answer your question of "How can the world support so many of us?", I would like to point at that with every new person born, that is a new person thinking of scientific advancements that can be made, producing stuff for others, for their kids, etc. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation#History_of_concern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation#History_o...
  - haihaibye 8y ago
    > that with every new person born, that is a new person thinking of scientific advancements that can be made Smarts for scienfic advancement is not evenly spread across global populations. It's possible to have population growth while the high IQ fraction shrinks. All evidence says this is the current state of the earth.
    - awesomepeter 8y ago
      What evidence? Afaik average IQ is constantly rising: https://ourworldindata.org/intelligence#iq-gains-over-time-and-the-flynn-effect-by-country https://ourworldindata.org/intelligence#iq-gains-over-time-a...
      - haihaibye 8y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox Each group is improving but mix of groups is changing. High IQ populations have low fertility vs low IQ groups having high. South Korea with IQ 106 has TRF of 1.17. Nigeria IQ 84 has TRF of 5.53. A gain of IQs within groups will be dwarfed by the change between groups. If you think IQ tests are bogus we can use other metrics, eg Europe had 2x the population of Sub Saharan Africa in 1950, now Africa is bigger but has produced no hard science Nobel prizes and no new technology (like South Korea's smartphones)
- sidlls 8y ago
  Your argument is about the reproduction rate, not whether it's optional.
- mrfusion 8y ago
  We don’t need to be brutal to livestock now.
rdm_blackhole 8y ago
That's only if our current economic model stays the same. At the moment most developed countries rely on immigration to create growth by adding more consumers. However, it is changing, as the world develops, fewer people are born and within a century our population growth will flatten and our global population will even decline to the 2000's level. Children should not be made just to keep society going. That's quite a selfish reason to have a child, to be honest.
- Robotbeat 8y ago
  That’s the opposite of selfish.
  - rdm_blackhole 8y ago
    Do you care to elaborate?
    - Robotbeat 8y ago
      Doing something that’s essential to society but which requires enormous amount of individual sacrifice and cost. Voluntarily.
      - rdm_blackhole 8y ago
        And That's where we disagree. Having kids is not essential to society. Actually, society would be better off if we just maintained our current population level and learned to live with the resources at hand instead or ever expanding and depleting the ocean, the underground and the forests until there is nothing left. If you consider having kids as an individual sacrifice, then maybe you are having kids for the wrong reasons. People should not be forced to have kids to perpetuate society or because its good for the economy or because the government( of any country) says we should.
        intuitionist 8y ago
        You realize that in order to maintain our current population level, people still have to have kids, right?
kelnos 8y ago
> Work is optional. There are plenty of people who get by without it. You must live in a very different world than most people do if that's the norm among your peer group. > And for society to continue to function having children is actually not optional. At a macro level, sure (though a slow, steady reduction in population over the next few generations might do the planet some good), but on the individual level, it's absolutely optional.

by sidlls 8y ago

Work is optional. There are plenty of people who get by without it. Doesn't mean they're doing well or healthy. And for society to continue to function having children is actually not optional.

jolmg 8y ago

> Work is optional. There are plenty of people who get by without it. Doesn't mean they're doing well or healthy. Except if you don't have a kid, you have better chances of staying well and healthy. That's the whole point. That's what is meant with parenthood being optional and work not. > And for society to continue to function having children is actually not optional. With the rate at which world population is increasing[1], I think the opposite is true. It wasn't that long ago that we reached a world population of 7 billion. Now, we're apparently more than halfway to 8 billion. How in the world can the earth support so many of us? Yesterday, there was a post here that talked about the absolutely brutal conditions that we're raising livestock in[2]. We wouldn't need to be so god damn efficient in working livestock if we didn't have so many mouths to feed. [1] http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19743006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19743006

rootusrootus 8y ago
Well, if everyone stopped having kids effective immediately, we could have the population issue solved very quickly. Along with all our other problems, too, after a few decades of suffering.
gilleain 8y ago
7 billion, not trillion
- jolmg 8y ago
  :P Thanks. Fun Fact I learned from that link: Supposedly, we'll be reaching our first trillion sometime between 2050 and 2060. That's actually pretty close.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    If the world population is 7 billion now and will be 1,000 billion around 2055, then by my math (142.9^(1/36)) that's a growth rate of 14.8% a year. Since the current growth rate is (based on the first few hits on Google) a little over 1%, I wonder why someone would expect it to go up that drastically. Especially with global warming and everything.
    - jolmg 8y ago
      You're right[1]. I should've checked a better source. > Especially with global warming and everything. Yes, you're also right about that. I just didn't want to throw global warming into the mix. [1] https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/ https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/
  - intuitionist 8y ago
    That is neither fun nor a fact. Current UN projections put us on track for 9 billion in 2050, and we’ll top out at 11 or 12 billion in the early 22nd century: https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/world-population-prospects-the-2017-revision.html https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/world-popul...
    - jolmg 8y ago
      The fun was sarcasm, but you're right. I should have checked better sources.
    - quickthrower2 8y ago
      Pro tip: Fun facts are never fun, and pro tips are for ametuers.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
Rescis 8y ago
To start, we are at 7.53 /billion/, not trillion. Second, ever single time someone has said that overpopulation was going to be the end of us, they've been wrong. To quote Wikipedia, which go so far back as Ancient Carthage and Greece: Concern about overpopulation is an ancient topic. Tertullian was a resident of the city of Carthage in the second century CE, when the population of the world was about 190 million (only 3–4% of what it is today). He notably said: "What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint) is our teeming population. Our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly support us.... In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race." Before that, Plato, Aristotle and others broached the topic as well. [1] Finally, to answer your question of "How can the world support so many of us?", I would like to point at that with every new person born, that is a new person thinking of scientific advancements that can be made, producing stuff for others, for their kids, etc. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation#History_of_concern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation#History_o...
- haihaibye 8y ago
  > that with every new person born, that is a new person thinking of scientific advancements that can be made Smarts for scienfic advancement is not evenly spread across global populations. It's possible to have population growth while the high IQ fraction shrinks. All evidence says this is the current state of the earth.
  - awesomepeter 8y ago
    What evidence? Afaik average IQ is constantly rising: https://ourworldindata.org/intelligence#iq-gains-over-time-and-the-flynn-effect-by-country https://ourworldindata.org/intelligence#iq-gains-over-time-a...
    - haihaibye 8y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox Each group is improving but mix of groups is changing. High IQ populations have low fertility vs low IQ groups having high. South Korea with IQ 106 has TRF of 1.17. Nigeria IQ 84 has TRF of 5.53. A gain of IQs within groups will be dwarfed by the change between groups. If you think IQ tests are bogus we can use other metrics, eg Europe had 2x the population of Sub Saharan Africa in 1950, now Africa is bigger but has produced no hard science Nobel prizes and no new technology (like South Korea's smartphones)
sidlls 8y ago
Your argument is about the reproduction rate, not whether it's optional.
mrfusion 8y ago
We don’t need to be brutal to livestock now.

rdm_blackhole 8y ago

That's only if our current economic model stays the same. At the moment most developed countries rely on immigration to create growth by adding more consumers. However, it is changing, as the world develops, fewer people are born and within a century our population growth will flatten and our global population will even decline to the 2000's level. Children should not be made just to keep society going. That's quite a selfish reason to have a child, to be honest.

Robotbeat 8y ago
That’s the opposite of selfish.
- rdm_blackhole 8y ago
  Do you care to elaborate?
  - Robotbeat 8y ago
    Doing something that’s essential to society but which requires enormous amount of individual sacrifice and cost. Voluntarily.
    - rdm_blackhole 8y ago
      And That's where we disagree. Having kids is not essential to society. Actually, society would be better off if we just maintained our current population level and learned to live with the resources at hand instead or ever expanding and depleting the ocean, the underground and the forests until there is nothing left. If you consider having kids as an individual sacrifice, then maybe you are having kids for the wrong reasons. People should not be forced to have kids to perpetuate society or because its good for the economy or because the government( of any country) says we should.
      - intuitionist 8y ago
        You realize that in order to maintain our current population level, people still have to have kids, right?

kelnos 8y ago

> Work is optional. There are plenty of people who get by without it. You must live in a very different world than most people do if that's the norm among your peer group. > And for society to continue to function having children is actually not optional. At a macro level, sure (though a slow, steady reduction in population over the next few generations might do the planet some good), but on the individual level, it's absolutely optional.