3 ms·
> What we really need is less people. Okay, here's the thesis. Sounds like neo-Malthusianism. > Seriously though, no matter how efficient we get with our spac
by jdc 7y ago
> What we really need is less people.
Okay, here's the thesis. Sounds like neo-Malthusianism.
> Seriously though, no matter how efficient we get with our space, eventually we'll hit a wall and the solution is going to be exactly the same as it always was and is: reproduce less quickly.
Yep, that's the Malthusian endgame. Unpacking this claim, it seems to be claiming that the Earth is a closed-system that we can't escape. Now I'm looking for evidence or supporting arguments that prove that.
> The only difference is how much nature will be left when we get to that point.
What exactly does the phrase "how much nature will be left" mean to you? This is too hand-wavy, especially for such a heavy-handed conclusion.
> I've started to look at houses with yards as miniature nature preserves.
Is a golf course a nature preserve? No. Of course not. It's an extremely controlled environment. Any wildlife foolish enough to try to inhabit it that doesn't fit in a coffee cup will almost certainly be chased off, trapped or killed.
- birdyrooster 7y agoOr mutated by chemicals used to service the machines, treat the grass or clean the premises.
- wolco 7y agoBackyards do provide a nature preserve for a city. They take heat away and allows birds/raccoons/squirrels/butterflies a place to eat/rest. If they all were converted to apartments the city would be worse off. A balance of both makes sense.
- UnFleshedOne 7y agoActually your usual backyard lawns are not much better than concrete slabs as far as biodiversity goes. [0] https://earther.gizmodo.com/lawns-are-an-ecological-disaster-1826070720 https://earther.gizmodo.com/lawns-are-an-ecological-disaster...
- dooglius 7y agoThe current population increases by about 140 people per minute. How do you intend to launch people off the earth at that kind of rate?
- jdc 7y agoBecause we live in three-dimensional space, there's no reason for us to run out of room unless we stop building (especially upwards). The constraint isn't necessarily that people have to leave the planet so much as we need to ensure access to minerals and high industrial capacity. When we exhaust "nearby" minerals and space transit has advanced enough, colonization will look more attractive. Will we hit a bottleneck along the way? I don't know. But it would be an awful shame if it were political.