5 ms·

> It was achieved at untold cost This is just evidence of what we already know: our current society is unsustainable. > will be paid by generations to come I

> It was achieved at untold cost This is just evidence of what we already know: our current society is unsustainable. > will be paid by generations to come I think you're pretty optimistic about how the future will develop given that we have not only just demonstrated our society is unsustainable, but that we are not capable of making serious progress towards a sustainable society. Large portions of are planet are soon to become uninhabitable by humans. Major disruptions in our food supply are likely not that far off. The idea that we need to get back to "business as usual" means these things are all the more certain.

29athrowaway 6y ago
In ecological terms, we are an invasive species without a predator multiplying exponentially. We either accept reality and live and adapt to the limits imposed by nature or prepare to live in permanent war for resources.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Humans tend to stop multiplying exponentially, though.
  - Retric 6y ago
    So do rats with abundant food in an enclosed environment, it doesn’t end well. https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1962-calhoun.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1962-calhoun.pdf Which isn’t to say the same rules apply to humans, but it’s also critical to get this right.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      I think that most modern countries are doing a reasonable job.
      - 29athrowaway 6y ago
        No, they are not. They are not treating the problem as the emergency that it is. Wasteful consumerism is legal everywhere.
    - zhouyisu 6y ago
      Too many differences. No awareness; No knowledge; No government; No communication; No money; No faith.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      No not that, there's a very strong negative correlation between birth rate and development. The more a society develops, the lower its birth rate. Down to well below replacement rate of 2.1, for instance in the US (1.7), Canada (1.5), Japan (1.42), Finland (1.41). Without immigration those populations would dwindle in just a few generations. [1] [1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Connection-between-the-human-development-index-HDI-and-total-fertility-rate-TFR_fig4_325981170 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Connection-between-the-h...
      - mola 6y ago
        This is not a law of nature, it is history as it unfolded in the twentieth century. We don't know if that'll continue to hold or not.
        Retric 6y ago
        Yea, but it’s still an open question when or if this stabilizes. A global population of between something like 100 million to 10 billion could sustain an advanced technical society capable of innovation. But, where slowly oscillating between say 1 and 2 billion people would be fine, regular massive population crashes could represent a great filter which generally prevents interstellar civilizations.
      - 29athrowaway 6y ago
        And the more a country develops, the more resources they consume per capita. One individual in a developed country consumes orders of magnitude more than one in a less developed country.
    - gwern 6y ago
      > So do rats with abundant food in an enclosed environment, it doesn’t end well I have a lot of questions about whether that's true of even rats: https://www.gwern.net/Questions#mouse-utopia https://www.gwern.net/Questions#mouse-utopia
  - baron_harkonnen 6y ago
    You should spend some time researching the estimated carrying capacity of the Earth for humans without fossil fuels. Last I check most agreements were around 1 billion people. We’ve artificially bumped that up with an unsustainable energy source that we have no viable pathway for replacement. It doesn’t matter if growth caps off soon, we’ve already exceeded the bounds. We’re in overtime now seeing how limited resources plays out.
    - 29athrowaway 6y ago
      Fish and topsoil are also among the resources that are at high risk of being depleted within our lifetime. Groundwater in many places is running out as well.
- Geminidog 6y ago
  We're no longer invasive. Almost every wild animal on every continent has evolved an innate fear of humans as a defense mechanism. We have been the apex predator across the world for a long long time and animals have evolved to deal with this fact. Only in small islands cut off from humanity for eons will you find wild animals that feel no fear against humans.
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    - Non-native organism to most places around the world: check - Negative environmental effect: check We are an invasive species. Our species originated in Africa, then as we expanded we negatively affected our environment worldwide.
    - Geminidog 6y ago
      So every species on the face of the earth that ever expanded its territory is invasive? That's basically every living thing on the face of the earth. Make no mistake, almost every living thing that expanded its territory had a negative effect on that territory that was expanded into which will make every species "invasive" under your hair brained extreme technical definition. Most humans can catch the drift of what I'm trying to convey though. I'll spell it out for you because you seem to be a savant... too intelligent to understand the obvious subtleties of normal human communication. Invasive species only refer to a subset of species under temporal conditions meaning the current ecosystem which the species invades has not YET adapted to the invasion. If all animals have died/evolved and changed to accommodate for the situation the species is no longer invasive it is the status quo. If what I said above isn't part of the definition then it makes every freaking thing on the face of the earth invasive. So it's unspoken but Obviously invasive refers to a temporal phenomenon. Because your a savant too intelligent for mure mortals like me, let me give you an example why what I said above isn't included in the wikipedia definition. Think of the word 'thief.' If a child steals some candy from the store he is a thief. If the child grows up to be 50 years old and never steals anything again for the rest of his life typical humans no longer call him a thief. This means thief refers to a temporal phenomenon and most humans are able to recognize this even though webster's dictionary doesn't include it in the definition. We humans call this "obvious." But someone like you who can't figure out what typical people find "obvious" must mean that your beyond human. A person of such extraordinary logic that subtleties of human language are irrelevant to you. That or your just making up logic to support some agenda, because it's utterly clear what I'm talking about. Also throwaway usernames are against the rules in HN.
- miltondts 6y ago
  Are we an invasive species? wiki: "An invasive species is a non-native species that has become naturalized and negatively alters its new environment." Seems about right. No predator. Also yes. Multiplying exponentially. In the past century, yes. It seems to be slowing down, and so one might argue that it is a logistic growth. If we exceed the limits of the environment we either suffer massive problems and eventually a die-off, or we manage to invent some new tech that expands the carrying capacity of Earth. This is all pretty much factually correct. So, can someone explain the down votes?

29athrowaway 6y ago

In ecological terms, we are an invasive species without a predator multiplying exponentially. We either accept reality and live and adapt to the limits imposed by nature or prepare to live in permanent war for resources.

saagarjha 6y ago
Humans tend to stop multiplying exponentially, though.
- Retric 6y ago
  So do rats with abundant food in an enclosed environment, it doesn’t end well. https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1962-calhoun.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1962-calhoun.pdf Which isn’t to say the same rules apply to humans, but it’s also critical to get this right.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I think that most modern countries are doing a reasonable job.
    - 29athrowaway 6y ago
      No, they are not. They are not treating the problem as the emergency that it is. Wasteful consumerism is legal everywhere.
  - zhouyisu 6y ago
    Too many differences. No awareness; No knowledge; No government; No communication; No money; No faith.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    No not that, there's a very strong negative correlation between birth rate and development. The more a society develops, the lower its birth rate. Down to well below replacement rate of 2.1, for instance in the US (1.7), Canada (1.5), Japan (1.42), Finland (1.41). Without immigration those populations would dwindle in just a few generations. [1] [1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Connection-between-the-human-development-index-HDI-and-total-fertility-rate-TFR_fig4_325981170 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Connection-between-the-h...
    - mola 6y ago
      This is not a law of nature, it is history as it unfolded in the twentieth century. We don't know if that'll continue to hold or not.
      - Retric 6y ago
        Yea, but it’s still an open question when or if this stabilizes. A global population of between something like 100 million to 10 billion could sustain an advanced technical society capable of innovation. But, where slowly oscillating between say 1 and 2 billion people would be fine, regular massive population crashes could represent a great filter which generally prevents interstellar civilizations.
    - 29athrowaway 6y ago
      And the more a country develops, the more resources they consume per capita. One individual in a developed country consumes orders of magnitude more than one in a less developed country.
  - gwern 6y ago
    > So do rats with abundant food in an enclosed environment, it doesn’t end well I have a lot of questions about whether that's true of even rats: https://www.gwern.net/Questions#mouse-utopia https://www.gwern.net/Questions#mouse-utopia
- baron_harkonnen 6y ago
  You should spend some time researching the estimated carrying capacity of the Earth for humans without fossil fuels. Last I check most agreements were around 1 billion people. We’ve artificially bumped that up with an unsustainable energy source that we have no viable pathway for replacement. It doesn’t matter if growth caps off soon, we’ve already exceeded the bounds. We’re in overtime now seeing how limited resources plays out.
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    Fish and topsoil are also among the resources that are at high risk of being depleted within our lifetime. Groundwater in many places is running out as well.
Geminidog 6y ago
We're no longer invasive. Almost every wild animal on every continent has evolved an innate fear of humans as a defense mechanism. We have been the apex predator across the world for a long long time and animals have evolved to deal with this fact. Only in small islands cut off from humanity for eons will you find wild animals that feel no fear against humans.
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  - Non-native organism to most places around the world: check - Negative environmental effect: check We are an invasive species. Our species originated in Africa, then as we expanded we negatively affected our environment worldwide.
  - Geminidog 6y ago
    So every species on the face of the earth that ever expanded its territory is invasive? That's basically every living thing on the face of the earth. Make no mistake, almost every living thing that expanded its territory had a negative effect on that territory that was expanded into which will make every species "invasive" under your hair brained extreme technical definition. Most humans can catch the drift of what I'm trying to convey though. I'll spell it out for you because you seem to be a savant... too intelligent to understand the obvious subtleties of normal human communication. Invasive species only refer to a subset of species under temporal conditions meaning the current ecosystem which the species invades has not YET adapted to the invasion. If all animals have died/evolved and changed to accommodate for the situation the species is no longer invasive it is the status quo. If what I said above isn't part of the definition then it makes every freaking thing on the face of the earth invasive. So it's unspoken but Obviously invasive refers to a temporal phenomenon. Because your a savant too intelligent for mure mortals like me, let me give you an example why what I said above isn't included in the wikipedia definition. Think of the word 'thief.' If a child steals some candy from the store he is a thief. If the child grows up to be 50 years old and never steals anything again for the rest of his life typical humans no longer call him a thief. This means thief refers to a temporal phenomenon and most humans are able to recognize this even though webster's dictionary doesn't include it in the definition. We humans call this "obvious." But someone like you who can't figure out what typical people find "obvious" must mean that your beyond human. A person of such extraordinary logic that subtleties of human language are irrelevant to you. That or your just making up logic to support some agenda, because it's utterly clear what I'm talking about. Also throwaway usernames are against the rules in HN.
miltondts 6y ago
Are we an invasive species? wiki: "An invasive species is a non-native species that has become naturalized and negatively alters its new environment." Seems about right. No predator. Also yes. Multiplying exponentially. In the past century, yes. It seems to be slowing down, and so one might argue that it is a logistic growth. If we exceed the limits of the environment we either suffer massive problems and eventually a die-off, or we manage to invent some new tech that expands the carrying capacity of Earth. This is all pretty much factually correct. So, can someone explain the down votes?