4 ms·

I know this is off topic, but: There are too many of us. If we can't override our survival instinct to multiply (and consume) uncontrollably, then we are at ris

I know this is off topic, but: There are too many of us. If we can't override our survival instinct to multiply (and consume) uncontrollably, then we are at risk of making ourselves extinct. Then there will be none of us.

andrewljohnson 6y ago
What makes you think that?
saagarjha 6y ago
Industrialized countries have done a pretty good job at getting us to override the instinct to reproduce uncontrollably.
- RhysU 6y ago
  Expensive housing and expensive college go a long way when combined with decreasing disposable income, stress, and career ambitions. It's almost like we're one global organism responding to our own environmental pressure.
CGamesPlay 6y ago
Probably not none of us, but when the system collapses due to lack of resources the number of humans will drastically fall as well. Kind of like how a forest fire doesn't just immediately disappear when all for he trees are burned, there remain embers burning for days or weeks after.
- kanzure 6y ago
  "It was calculated already in the 1960s by the Agricultural Economics Research Institute, Oxford, that the agricultural productivity, even at that time, would be more than sufficient to feed 45 billion people globally."[1] Granted, there's much more to sustaining humans than just food, but come on let's apply some engineering to the problem first before giving up. There's another, better reference but it escapes me at the moment- something calculating that with various engineering techniques applied to the planet, 100 billion people shouldn't be an issue. Edit: Wow has it been 15-17 years already? Good seeing you. [1] Agricultural productivity in relation to population, 1963
bena 6y ago
That may be eventually true, but we're much further from that point than you might think. The U.S. alone wastes about 141 trillion calories worth of food. It comes out to around 1250 calories per capita. Feeding the world is a logistics problem right now, not a production problem. And we also have the space for all 7 billion humans with room to spare. I think right now, there's enough for everybody to have about 4 acres.
- hnaccy 6y ago
  Pure caloric need may be a non-issue but I don't think it's sustainable for every living human to have a first world lifestyle barring many tech improvements. It's seems preferable to have a lower stable population where everyone has a very high standard of living and a low aggregate environmental impact. A flat cap of two children per person would halt and slowly reduce the population without killing anyone or being unfair to specific groups.
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    What is "high standard of living" anyway? How many yachts and airplanes is it? How many cars? Other modes of transportation? Average kilograms of stuff owned and used per person? Living space? How long you have to travel to work or how far? How much do you strictly have to work to live at that level, if linear scaling would be sufficient? How much energy, thermal and electrical is used to sustain and separately embodied in production of your stuff? Etc. Once we define the threshold of high standard of living, we can optimize for it. This is literally when we say "nearly nobody can live as opulent as this" and can condemn waste. Feel free to pick say 90th percentile or something.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    There isn’t really any reason a first world lifestyle isn’t sustainable for everyone. France emits half the carbon per person and has a great standard. Similarly, higher lifestyle is tied to fewer children, and therefore less carbon emissions. If there was one thing that we could do to increase sustainability, it would be to Increase quality of life as fast as possible
briefcomment 6y ago
That may be true, but this mindset is one of the catalysts for the eugenics movement. Combine that mindset with incredible wealth and a "messiah complex", and we're in for a horrifying future. Probably better to look for ways for a growing population to thrive on the earth, rather than admit defeat to overpopulation.
- aklemm 6y ago
  If we don’t cap out at some reasonable population, it seems to me we’ll lose basically all of the natural world long before the Earth can no longer support us through industrial agriculture and technology. I don’t like that trade-off. The eugenics thing is doubtful; what exactly is the mechanism that ties eugenics to population controls? There are myriad ethical ways to control population. For example, just make all countries advanced and the people will choose to have fewer children, as is happening already now.
rossnordby 6y ago
Given the timescales that humans operate on, it would be incredibly strange for us to reproduce into extinction. As far as direct effects, an unmitigated exponential growth trend would eventually result in widespread famine and other resource restrictions leading to a population-limiting amount of death. Not extinction, but not much fun either. Long term accumulating issues that become unrecoverable past a tipping point could be a source of extinction (e.g. extreme worst case climate change). Here, yes, exponential growth could hasten extinction in a world where people weren't trying to stop the catastrophe, but... 1. Empirically, we're not on an exponential curve or anything close to it. Many developed countries would be in population decline without immigration. 2. Generally, the best solution to problems of efficiency or long term threats is improved technology, not reducing population. In the concrete case of climate change, cutting emissions per capita by >50% is both achievable and clearly superior to the Thanos approach. 3. More people can produce a more interesting universe to live in. Imagine a solar system colonized with 10 trillion humans: provided we build the requisite efficient infrastructure to unfetter human creativity, we would have the capacity to produce over a thousand times as many isekai animes.
- mindfulhack 6y ago
  I appreciate your immaculate grammar. :) There's not many people - at least outside HN - who write Internet comments of such good writing quality. From one technical writer to possibly another, thanks. :) And I appreciate your optimism. Not sure if it's been done much, but more honest analysis - that isn't biased by human emotions like hope of survival - on the history of the natural world and all evolution across all organisms from the beginning until now, analysing which behaviours result in which outcomes in terms of species extinction and resources sustainability, would be appreciated. No one wants to hear bad news, but we have to take its possibility seriously.

andrewljohnson 6y ago

What makes you think that?

saagarjha 6y ago

Industrialized countries have done a pretty good job at getting us to override the instinct to reproduce uncontrollably.

RhysU 6y ago
Expensive housing and expensive college go a long way when combined with decreasing disposable income, stress, and career ambitions. It's almost like we're one global organism responding to our own environmental pressure.

CGamesPlay 6y ago

Probably not none of us, but when the system collapses due to lack of resources the number of humans will drastically fall as well. Kind of like how a forest fire doesn't just immediately disappear when all for he trees are burned, there remain embers burning for days or weeks after.

kanzure 6y ago
"It was calculated already in the 1960s by the Agricultural Economics Research Institute, Oxford, that the agricultural productivity, even at that time, would be more than sufficient to feed 45 billion people globally."[1] Granted, there's much more to sustaining humans than just food, but come on let's apply some engineering to the problem first before giving up. There's another, better reference but it escapes me at the moment- something calculating that with various engineering techniques applied to the planet, 100 billion people shouldn't be an issue. Edit: Wow has it been 15-17 years already? Good seeing you. [1] Agricultural productivity in relation to population, 1963

bena 6y ago

That may be eventually true, but we're much further from that point than you might think. The U.S. alone wastes about 141 trillion calories worth of food. It comes out to around 1250 calories per capita. Feeding the world is a logistics problem right now, not a production problem. And we also have the space for all 7 billion humans with room to spare. I think right now, there's enough for everybody to have about 4 acres.

hnaccy 6y ago
Pure caloric need may be a non-issue but I don't think it's sustainable for every living human to have a first world lifestyle barring many tech improvements. It's seems preferable to have a lower stable population where everyone has a very high standard of living and a low aggregate environmental impact. A flat cap of two children per person would halt and slowly reduce the population without killing anyone or being unfair to specific groups.
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  What is "high standard of living" anyway? How many yachts and airplanes is it? How many cars? Other modes of transportation? Average kilograms of stuff owned and used per person? Living space? How long you have to travel to work or how far? How much do you strictly have to work to live at that level, if linear scaling would be sufficient? How much energy, thermal and electrical is used to sustain and separately embodied in production of your stuff? Etc. Once we define the threshold of high standard of living, we can optimize for it. This is literally when we say "nearly nobody can live as opulent as this" and can condemn waste. Feel free to pick say 90th percentile or something.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  There isn’t really any reason a first world lifestyle isn’t sustainable for everyone. France emits half the carbon per person and has a great standard. Similarly, higher lifestyle is tied to fewer children, and therefore less carbon emissions. If there was one thing that we could do to increase sustainability, it would be to Increase quality of life as fast as possible

briefcomment 6y ago

That may be true, but this mindset is one of the catalysts for the eugenics movement. Combine that mindset with incredible wealth and a "messiah complex", and we're in for a horrifying future. Probably better to look for ways for a growing population to thrive on the earth, rather than admit defeat to overpopulation.

aklemm 6y ago
If we don’t cap out at some reasonable population, it seems to me we’ll lose basically all of the natural world long before the Earth can no longer support us through industrial agriculture and technology. I don’t like that trade-off. The eugenics thing is doubtful; what exactly is the mechanism that ties eugenics to population controls? There are myriad ethical ways to control population. For example, just make all countries advanced and the people will choose to have fewer children, as is happening already now.

rossnordby 6y ago

Given the timescales that humans operate on, it would be incredibly strange for us to reproduce into extinction. As far as direct effects, an unmitigated exponential growth trend would eventually result in widespread famine and other resource restrictions leading to a population-limiting amount of death. Not extinction, but not much fun either. Long term accumulating issues that become unrecoverable past a tipping point could be a source of extinction (e.g. extreme worst case climate change). Here, yes, exponential growth could hasten extinction in a world where people weren't trying to stop the catastrophe, but... 1. Empirically, we're not on an exponential curve or anything close to it. Many developed countries would be in population decline without immigration. 2. Generally, the best solution to problems of efficiency or long term threats is improved technology, not reducing population. In the concrete case of climate change, cutting emissions per capita by >50% is both achievable and clearly superior to the Thanos approach. 3. More people can produce a more interesting universe to live in. Imagine a solar system colonized with 10 trillion humans: provided we build the requisite efficient infrastructure to unfetter human creativity, we would have the capacity to produce over a thousand times as many isekai animes.

mindfulhack 6y ago
I appreciate your immaculate grammar. :) There's not many people - at least outside HN - who write Internet comments of such good writing quality. From one technical writer to possibly another, thanks. :) And I appreciate your optimism. Not sure if it's been done much, but more honest analysis - that isn't biased by human emotions like hope of survival - on the history of the natural world and all evolution across all organisms from the beginning until now, analysing which behaviours result in which outcomes in terms of species extinction and resources sustainability, would be appreciated. No one wants to hear bad news, but we have to take its possibility seriously.