7 ms·
Its incredible that we are asleep on the wheel on this with little media coverage and no policy goals despite freefalling testosterone levels and rising miscarr
by Hammershaft 6y ago
Its incredible that we are asleep on the wheel on this with little media coverage and no policy goals despite freefalling testosterone levels and rising miscarriages. This amounts to a silent social and biological experiment on our entire population.
- xwdv 6y agoIt’s okay, we really don’t need more people on this planet anyway, it causes too much strain on our resources.
- pixel_tracing 6y agoThis is an argument that most people come to an initial conclusion for. Unfortunately economics doesn’t work this way. You need a steady supply of new borns to support and be providers / producers who then in turn take care of the elderly this is the way society works and has for centuries. A countries work output is determined to some large degree by their population size. Just look at Japan and see how it stagnated as a world super power. Almost a century ago Japan was poised to be a world super power just like the US.
- fukmbas 6y agoFuk economics. I'm so tired of people putting capitalism before lives
- pixel_tracing 6y agoAs you post on your iPhone / Laptop enjoying the luxury of today’s modern world which is a result of macroeconomics among other things.
- Fricken 6y agoTIL having an iphone is more important than being alive.
- pixel_tracing 6y agoThis seems more like a YouTube comment thread than hacker news am I in the right place? :-)
- gremlinsinc 6y agoIs this the iPhone made in America or Communist China? Your argument is a strawman's at best, as is mine but I'm being facetious on purpose.
- Bancakes 6y agoHaving social media and these toy devices is semi-required. Plus, we don't get them for free, we pay a LOT of money for technology.
- owyn 6y agoA steady supply of producers is also an increasing number of consumers. At what point is that unsustainable? Which is more important in the long run, the competition to be a "world super power" or having a livable planet 1000 years from now? If economics is more a human invention and less a fundamental law of the universe, maybe "economics doesn't work this way" is something we can change.
- pixel_tracing 6y agoI am confused by what point you are trying to make, do you want us to live in the dark ages? Do country foreign policy relations just suddenly disappear? How does this plan for ending consumption work in your mind?
- 14 6y agoIt is actually not okay because like many things in nature we see a resilience that allows whatever process to continue but that could suddenly end. Also things tend to get worse at an exponential rate so although it may not be horrible now we may be heading towards something much bigger and worse. We have plenty of room on earth we just don’t do a good job of allocating resources.
- drenvuk 6y agoIt should be a choice.
- Fricken 6y agoWhy would we want to let anyone choose to cause too much strain on our resources? There's no back-up planet.
- readflaggedcomm 6y agoBecause it's immoral to limit how we use our bodies.
- drenvuk 6y agoI hate that argument. I Absolutely despise it. Right now you have a defeatist's attitude. Imagine you're standing in front of a bear cage. Imagine if that bear cage was going to open in the next ten seconds. Imagine there was a button on the wall that you could press to keep that cage closed. Would you press it? Would you want other people to be able to press it if they were your situation? The example doesn't even have to be that drastic, imagine any good or bad consequence at all. It would be advantageous to have a button that controls whether it happens. Right now we are not in control and humans have always striven to have control. My sense of self-preservation it not just for me - I feel it for all of humanity, present and future. If you still disagree with me that's fine but if you're going to be logically consistent while espousing the belief that humanity shouldn't exist because we use too many resources the generous thing to do would be to off yourself first. Please don't though, instead help the rest of us figure out a way for more humans to live happily while improving our current world. There is no reason we can't. None. We just haven't figured it out.
- foerbert 6y agoI find this line of though particularly strange too. Right now you have an extremely optimistic attitude. I'm not sure why hoping for the best is supposed to be a wise decision when we're talking about basic things like 'survival of the human race' and whatnot. I'm also rather uncertain how your 'caged bear button' example is relevant here. The only dangerous bear I can see in this context is the overuse of resources. In which case the example seems to be advocating that the best course of action is to expose people to the danger by default, unless people take constant action to keep the danger contained. I'm not sure how this argument is supposed to attack the "keep populations controlled" line of thought. At any rate, the obvious solution here seems to do both. Figure out how we can reasonably and ethically keep populations in the range we know we can support, while at the same time working to expand that limit. We don't have to pick one or the other. If you believe this to be a real problem, it seems reckless to simply hope we figure it out before the problem becomes too serious.
- throwaway8581 6y agoMy 7 children and their descendants will populate the Earth while your line dies out. Too bad for your clan I guess.
- ChainOfFools 6y agosee also: the 5 minute "what went wrong with civilization" vignette that opens Idiocracy
- nicbou 6y agoI'm not sure I understand this comment. Is it a threat? a joke? A reference?
- throwaway8581 6y agoNatalism is lindy.
- Bancakes 6y agoNo it doesn't, our resources are fine. Maybe oil is a problem but it's quickly being solved.
- astrange 6y ago> Its incredible that we are asleep on the wheel on this with little media coverage and no policy goals despite freefalling testosterone levels and rising miscarriages. Testosterone levels are rising again from reported lows a few years ago, and you probably don't want them too high because men would leave their wives. https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1372192564053430279 https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1372192564053430279
- Hammershaft 6y agoWhy do you think men would leave their wives? the last century has trended towards being less monogamous, not more.
- astrange 6y agoYour testosterone levels lower themselves once you're married and have kids, so that you'll focus on raising them and not leave to start a second family, or get yourself killed in a fight, etc.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]