4 ms·

You could also be spawning the person who solves the problem of climate change.

jjoonathan 6y ago
Right, and that's why the otherwise learned people who have been predicting, incorrectly, for thousands of years, that the earth was at/past carrying capacity have been wrong: more people means more human capacity, and that has outweighed having more mouths to feed.
- kpmah 6y ago
  Except now we have a scientific consensus that the Earth's carrying capacity will decrease. I don't think that's been true before. Expecting technological advancement to bail us out every time is wishful thinking.
  - nl 6y ago
    That's not true. There is no scientific consensus on the impact of climate change on total food production (there is a significant school of thought that it will increase due to increased production in Canada and Russia), and there's no consensus at all on what the carrying capacity of earth is. Check the IPCC report: For the major crops (wheat, rice, and maize) in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation will negatively impact production for local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late-20th-century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). {7.4, Figure 7-4} Projected impacts vary across crops and regions and adaptation scenarios, with about 10% of projections for the period 2030–2049 showing yield gains of more than 10% and about 10% of projections showing yield losses of more than 25%, compared to the late 20th century. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/food-security-and-food-production-systems/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/food-security-and-food-pr... Note how the projections are mixed between decreased and increased production? Don't claim consensus when it's not there.
gtfoutttt 6y ago
Or the next Hitler.
derwiki 6y ago
.. or the one who ruins the climate forever? Not sure this how you should be thinking of spawning :D
folkhack 6y ago
And you could also be spawning a genocidal maniac.
ben_w 6y ago
We have solutions to that. The biggest remaining problem right now is a few vested interests who don’t like the solutions we have because their wealth is tied to lots of people burning lots of stuff. There are other reasons not to follow this path, but that isn’t one of them.
js8 6y ago
I heard this argument many times. Has anyone ever actually done that? IMHO it's just a generational procrastination.
- nl 6y ago
  Well consider Jean-Joseph Pasteur and Jeanne-Etiennette Roqui for example.
  - js8 6y ago
    I don't understand what argument are you trying to make.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Rebuttal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery
    - nl 6y ago
      Sure, but all those simultaneous discoverers have parents too.

Right, and that's why the otherwise learned people who have been predicting, incorrectly, for thousands of years, that the earth was at/past carrying capacity have been wrong: more people means more human capacity, and that has outweighed having more mouths to feed.

kpmah 6y ago
Except now we have a scientific consensus that the Earth's carrying capacity will decrease. I don't think that's been true before. Expecting technological advancement to bail us out every time is wishful thinking.
- nl 6y ago
  That's not true. There is no scientific consensus on the impact of climate change on total food production (there is a significant school of thought that it will increase due to increased production in Canada and Russia), and there's no consensus at all on what the carrying capacity of earth is. Check the IPCC report: For the major crops (wheat, rice, and maize) in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation will negatively impact production for local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late-20th-century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). {7.4, Figure 7-4} Projected impacts vary across crops and regions and adaptation scenarios, with about 10% of projections for the period 2030–2049 showing yield gains of more than 10% and about 10% of projections showing yield losses of more than 25%, compared to the late 20th century. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/food-security-and-food-production-systems/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/food-security-and-food-pr... Note how the projections are mixed between decreased and increased production? Don't claim consensus when it's not there.

gtfoutttt 6y ago

Or the next Hitler.

derwiki 6y ago

.. or the one who ruins the climate forever? Not sure this how you should be thinking of spawning :D

folkhack 6y ago

And you could also be spawning a genocidal maniac.

ben_w 6y ago

We have solutions to that. The biggest remaining problem right now is a few vested interests who don’t like the solutions we have because their wealth is tied to lots of people burning lots of stuff. There are other reasons not to follow this path, but that isn’t one of them.

js8 6y ago

I heard this argument many times. Has anyone ever actually done that? IMHO it's just a generational procrastination.

nl 6y ago
Well consider Jean-Joseph Pasteur and Jeanne-Etiennette Roqui for example.
- js8 6y ago
  I don't understand what argument are you trying to make.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Rebuttal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery
  - nl 6y ago
    Sure, but all those simultaneous discoverers have parents too.