5 ms·

Always thought the unspoken onus is on OP to provide a non-paywalled link. Here's the full article from a week ago: https://archive.is/937Dt https://archive.is/

Always thought the unspoken onus is on OP to provide a non-paywalled link. Here's the full article from a week ago: https://archive.is/937Dt https://archive.is/937Dt > a recent paper inspired by their book, by Charles Jones, an economist at Stanford University, argues that over the long run any positive economic effects that come from a shrinking population may be cancelled out by the reduction in humankind’s creative capacity. If ideas drive growth and people are the source of ideas, he writes, then the fate of our species depends crucially on long-run population trends We have more creatives than we can already handle, more talented PhD scientists, researchers and engineers than a dozen Earths can afford to fund. In the face of relentless environmental degradation, greenhouse pollution and a scientific consensus that our planets sixth great extinction event occurring right now is solely caused by humans, how can anyone make statements like this with a straight face? Energy and resource exploitation is rising rapidly in the developing world, were they to consume as much per person as the West overnight the planet would be ruined very quickly.

chrisco255 6y ago
Really? How so? Is the west irreparably ruined? Still seems quite livable in 2021. National forest ecosystems are quite healthy. Environmental protections are actually enforced here. Conservation is properly funded. Seems like this is not true in developing countries.
- jbergens 6y ago
  The west uses more resources per capita than the world as a whole. If all parts would try to use as much the resources would not be enough. We might deplate the food resources, oil, gas and also cause irreparable damage to the environment.
  - ThomPete 6y ago
    The west also invented many of these resources. Before we found ways to turn them into resources they were useless. You are following the same line of reasoning we heard about how the earth couldnt sustain 4 billion, 5 billion, yet here we are wealthier, safer, more numerous than ever because we found ways to transform completely useless materials into valuable resources.
  - p2detar 6y ago
    But all parts do try and eventually will use as much as the resources the west uses. In fact, as the population on the west declines, the population in other parts of the world will make up for the resources demand. We will deplete all resource and cause irreparable damage in all possible scenarios. I think that much is clear. I hope we are technologically mature enough to be able to artificially evolve until that happens. That’s our best bet.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    The west produces more than enough food for itself and then some. Obviously food is a renewable so you will never run out of it. Wood? Renewable and has been sustainably farmed in the west for over 100 years. Then there are materials like Aluminum and Iron that there are massive stores of in earth's crust that could never be depleted. There are only certain things like oil that are not renewable but even the plastics and petroleum based products have plant based alternative versions, they are simply more expensive to produce at this time. I worry about conservation of natural habitats. But that is a bigger problem in developing countries than currently in the West.
    - concordDance 6y ago
      > But that is a bigger problem in developing countries than currently in the West. That'a because the west destroyed all the big animal habitats centuries ago. Did you know there used to be lions in europe?
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        According to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lions_in_Europe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lions_in_Europe you have to go back to Ancient Greek and Roman times to find lions in Europe. But also states some species went extinct in early Holocene 11K years ago after end of the last glacial period.
    - Hammershaft 6y ago
      > Obviously food is a renewable so you will never run out of it. Food relies on soil, a resource that we are depleting between 10x to 40x the replacement rate. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-...
  - mjevans 6y ago
    This is true for the moment. I'd love for more science fiction stuff to get moving, like solar collectors in orbit and microwave beaming the power back to the surface. (Of course any high concentration of power is inherently also abusable as a weapon...) We also have to worry about the addition of energy to the earth as an acceleration of global warming, which might be offset by making the top of all of our cities and roads reflective (often white, sometimes clear metal) instead.
- BelenusMordred 6y ago
  > Environmental protections are actually enforced here. From the device you are typing on, to the palm oil in most of your food, to the clothes you wear, I find it hard to believe that deep down people aren't even slightly aware of what that makes their lives "quite liveable in 2021" is built entirely on back of rampant environmental destruction elsewhere. Would you really argue a bunch of kids dying of cancer from rare earth mining in someone else's backyard to make an iPhone is not the Western end-consumers fault when they know it is happening? This externalisation and blame-shifting is not something to boast out loud, it's cringeworthy and embarrassing to read, I hope you revisit it in a few decades. > Conservation is properly funded. The extinction rate across the developed world is accelerating[1]. In some US states it's doubled in a few decades. A Harvard biologist estimates around 3 species an hour go extinct.[2] Humans annually absorb 42 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial net primary productivity, 30 percent of its marine net primary productivity and 50 percent of its fresh water[3] [1] https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/natur... > The Report finds that around 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades, more than ever before in human history. [2] https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/extinction/index.html https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_... > One constant, however, is human population pressure. A study of 114 nations found that human population density predicted with 88-percent accuracy the number of endangered birds and mammals [3] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/277/5325/494.full https://science.sciencemag.org/content/277/5325/494.full [3] https://sci-hub.se/https://science.sciencemag.org/content/277/5325/494.full https://sci-hub.se/https://science.sciencemag.org/content/27...
  - imtringued 6y ago
    >This externalisation and blame-shifting is not something to boast out loud, it's cringeworthy and embarrassing to read, I hope you revisit it in a few decades. In a few decades China is going "externalise" its environmental destruction elsewhere. Repeat this until there are no places left to destroy and by "to destroy" I don't mean they were destroyed, I mean that people decided that destroying them should be illegal.
ThomPete 6y ago
we have all the resources we need, what we are short on is knowledge to invent these resources. The more people we are the more likely we are to solve our problems.
- imtringued 6y ago
  We aren't short on knowledge, we are short on a proper arrangement of society. We already have all the people that we need.
sideshowb 6y ago
> more PhD scientists, researchers and engineers than a dozen Earths can afford to fund From a brutal evolutionary standpoint it doesn't matter how many we fund, what matters is whether the competitive environment produces enough winners to solve the mess we're in. Totally valid to question whether the current environment is optimal even on those limited terms, though, before we even get started on the ethics of inequality.
gspr 6y ago
Shit like this is why I need to quit HN. Balanced discussion of real problems seems impossible. It's a race to be the biggest doomsday preacher. Whatever happened to technologists fixing problems with technology?
- dsnr 6y ago
  > Whatever happened to technologists fixing problems with technology? That ended when they got into politics.
  - ansmithz42 6y ago
    And surveillance advertising...
- stareatgoats 6y ago
  It's just someone's opinion fcol, and not without merit at that. If you can't stand to read opinions that contrast with your own then I would support your efforts to find some other service that provides a fully hermetic bubble for you. Alternatively, try and articulate how your own opinion differs, and why your opinion is preferable. That seems as close as we can get to a balanced discussion.

chrisco255 6y ago

Really? How so? Is the west irreparably ruined? Still seems quite livable in 2021. National forest ecosystems are quite healthy. Environmental protections are actually enforced here. Conservation is properly funded. Seems like this is not true in developing countries.

jbergens 6y ago
The west uses more resources per capita than the world as a whole. If all parts would try to use as much the resources would not be enough. We might deplate the food resources, oil, gas and also cause irreparable damage to the environment.
- ThomPete 6y ago
  The west also invented many of these resources. Before we found ways to turn them into resources they were useless. You are following the same line of reasoning we heard about how the earth couldnt sustain 4 billion, 5 billion, yet here we are wealthier, safer, more numerous than ever because we found ways to transform completely useless materials into valuable resources.
- p2detar 6y ago
  But all parts do try and eventually will use as much as the resources the west uses. In fact, as the population on the west declines, the population in other parts of the world will make up for the resources demand. We will deplete all resource and cause irreparable damage in all possible scenarios. I think that much is clear. I hope we are technologically mature enough to be able to artificially evolve until that happens. That’s our best bet.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  The west produces more than enough food for itself and then some. Obviously food is a renewable so you will never run out of it. Wood? Renewable and has been sustainably farmed in the west for over 100 years. Then there are materials like Aluminum and Iron that there are massive stores of in earth's crust that could never be depleted. There are only certain things like oil that are not renewable but even the plastics and petroleum based products have plant based alternative versions, they are simply more expensive to produce at this time. I worry about conservation of natural habitats. But that is a bigger problem in developing countries than currently in the West.
  - concordDance 6y ago
    > But that is a bigger problem in developing countries than currently in the West. That'a because the west destroyed all the big animal habitats centuries ago. Did you know there used to be lions in europe?
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      According to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lions_in_Europe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lions_in_Europe you have to go back to Ancient Greek and Roman times to find lions in Europe. But also states some species went extinct in early Holocene 11K years ago after end of the last glacial period.
  - Hammershaft 6y ago
    > Obviously food is a renewable so you will never run out of it. Food relies on soil, a resource that we are depleting between 10x to 40x the replacement rate. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-...
- mjevans 6y ago
  This is true for the moment. I'd love for more science fiction stuff to get moving, like solar collectors in orbit and microwave beaming the power back to the surface. (Of course any high concentration of power is inherently also abusable as a weapon...) We also have to worry about the addition of energy to the earth as an acceleration of global warming, which might be offset by making the top of all of our cities and roads reflective (often white, sometimes clear metal) instead.
BelenusMordred 6y ago
> Environmental protections are actually enforced here. From the device you are typing on, to the palm oil in most of your food, to the clothes you wear, I find it hard to believe that deep down people aren't even slightly aware of what that makes their lives "quite liveable in 2021" is built entirely on back of rampant environmental destruction elsewhere. Would you really argue a bunch of kids dying of cancer from rare earth mining in someone else's backyard to make an iPhone is not the Western end-consumers fault when they know it is happening? This externalisation and blame-shifting is not something to boast out loud, it's cringeworthy and embarrassing to read, I hope you revisit it in a few decades. > Conservation is properly funded. The extinction rate across the developed world is accelerating[1]. In some US states it's doubled in a few decades. A Harvard biologist estimates around 3 species an hour go extinct.[2] Humans annually absorb 42 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial net primary productivity, 30 percent of its marine net primary productivity and 50 percent of its fresh water[3] [1] https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/natur... > The Report finds that around 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades, more than ever before in human history. [2] https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/extinction/index.html https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_... > One constant, however, is human population pressure. A study of 114 nations found that human population density predicted with 88-percent accuracy the number of endangered birds and mammals [3] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/277/5325/494.full https://science.sciencemag.org/content/277/5325/494.full [3] https://sci-hub.se/https://science.sciencemag.org/content/277/5325/494.full https://sci-hub.se/https://science.sciencemag.org/content/27...
- imtringued 6y ago
  >This externalisation and blame-shifting is not something to boast out loud, it's cringeworthy and embarrassing to read, I hope you revisit it in a few decades. In a few decades China is going "externalise" its environmental destruction elsewhere. Repeat this until there are no places left to destroy and by "to destroy" I don't mean they were destroyed, I mean that people decided that destroying them should be illegal.

ThomPete 6y ago

we have all the resources we need, what we are short on is knowledge to invent these resources. The more people we are the more likely we are to solve our problems.

imtringued 6y ago
We aren't short on knowledge, we are short on a proper arrangement of society. We already have all the people that we need.

sideshowb 6y ago

> more PhD scientists, researchers and engineers than a dozen Earths can afford to fund From a brutal evolutionary standpoint it doesn't matter how many we fund, what matters is whether the competitive environment produces enough winners to solve the mess we're in. Totally valid to question whether the current environment is optimal even on those limited terms, though, before we even get started on the ethics of inequality.

gspr 6y ago

Shit like this is why I need to quit HN. Balanced discussion of real problems seems impossible. It's a race to be the biggest doomsday preacher. Whatever happened to technologists fixing problems with technology?

dsnr 6y ago
> Whatever happened to technologists fixing problems with technology? That ended when they got into politics.
- ansmithz42 6y ago
  And surveillance advertising...
stareatgoats 6y ago
It's just someone's opinion fcol, and not without merit at that. If you can't stand to read opinions that contrast with your own then I would support your efforts to find some other service that provides a fully hermetic bubble for you. Alternatively, try and articulate how your own opinion differs, and why your opinion is preferable. That seems as close as we can get to a balanced discussion.