5 ms·

I disagree, most of the countries with booming populations are rather poor and don’t do much innovation or research. In the age we live in it’s almost impossibl

by dsnr 6y ago

I disagree, most of the countries with booming populations are rather poor and don’t do much innovation or research. In the age we live in it’s almost impossible for a lone wolf to fix a big problem of the humankind because of complexities involved. What is necessary instead is team work and funding innovation. Individuals don’t count as much anymore.

ThomPete 6y ago
We need both and that require more not less people.
- wsc981 6y ago
  > We need both and that require more not less people. A lot of problems would be solved 'automatically' if the world population would be reduced.
  - ThomPete 6y ago
    The world will always face problems and we will always be the victim of these if we don't have the knowledge to combat them. The more people we are the more we are likely to produce the wealth, knowledge and solutions for those problems. The idea that the worlds population is a problem is in my world an antihuman stance which keeps popping up even tough it keeps being proven wrong. Wether Maltahus, Erlich or the UN.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      >The idea that the worlds population is a problem is in my world an antihuman stance which keeps popping up even tough it keeps being proven wrong. Wether Maltahus, Erlich or the UN. Ok, I will stay in my pragmatically driven (being in favor of endless population growth is just another ideology, being in favor of neither is pragmatism), non population exploding enclave and become rich in the process. I'll be looking forward to seeing Africa mass produce poor people. Your ideology requires technological progress to always be faster than human population growth, sure you can keep this up another 300 years but at some point you are going to trip.
      - ThomPete 6y ago
        You say it's not pragmatic yet history seems to disagree with you. Humans create resources we don't just find them. 300 years from now we are either harvesting the universe or we are just sitting ducks waiting for some giant cataclysmic event. At least my "ideology" gives us a chance where as yours just wait for us to join natures 99.9% extinction rate.
    - erik_seaberg 6y ago
      The green revolution narrowly averted catastrophe by modernizing farming worldwide. How could we do that more than once?
      - ThomPete 6y ago
        Not sure what you mean. How did the green revolution avert catastrophe?
coldtea 6y ago
>I disagree, most of the countries with booming populations are rather poor and don’t do much innovation or research. That's for different historical reasons than their booming populations. They are still very dynamic economic wise, but have to start from a very low bar. But any country that was ever important had tons of people. Franch and UK and Germany were hugely important globally when they were among the top-5 most populous countries in the world (that was the case back in 19th century). Then the US took that role, and had a good run.
- throwaway316943 6y ago
  Cause or effect?
  - coldtea 6y ago
    Cause.

by dsnr 6y ago

ThomPete 6y ago

We need both and that require more not less people.

wsc981 6y ago
> We need both and that require more not less people. A lot of problems would be solved 'automatically' if the world population would be reduced.
- ThomPete 6y ago
  The world will always face problems and we will always be the victim of these if we don't have the knowledge to combat them. The more people we are the more we are likely to produce the wealth, knowledge and solutions for those problems. The idea that the worlds population is a problem is in my world an antihuman stance which keeps popping up even tough it keeps being proven wrong. Wether Maltahus, Erlich or the UN.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    >The idea that the worlds population is a problem is in my world an antihuman stance which keeps popping up even tough it keeps being proven wrong. Wether Maltahus, Erlich or the UN. Ok, I will stay in my pragmatically driven (being in favor of endless population growth is just another ideology, being in favor of neither is pragmatism), non population exploding enclave and become rich in the process. I'll be looking forward to seeing Africa mass produce poor people. Your ideology requires technological progress to always be faster than human population growth, sure you can keep this up another 300 years but at some point you are going to trip.
    - ThomPete 6y ago
      You say it's not pragmatic yet history seems to disagree with you. Humans create resources we don't just find them. 300 years from now we are either harvesting the universe or we are just sitting ducks waiting for some giant cataclysmic event. At least my "ideology" gives us a chance where as yours just wait for us to join natures 99.9% extinction rate.
  - erik_seaberg 6y ago
    The green revolution narrowly averted catastrophe by modernizing farming worldwide. How could we do that more than once?
    - ThomPete 6y ago
      Not sure what you mean. How did the green revolution avert catastrophe?

coldtea 6y ago

>I disagree, most of the countries with booming populations are rather poor and don’t do much innovation or research. That's for different historical reasons than their booming populations. They are still very dynamic economic wise, but have to start from a very low bar. But any country that was ever important had tons of people. Franch and UK and Germany were hugely important globally when they were among the top-5 most populous countries in the world (that was the case back in 19th century). Then the US took that role, and had a good run.

throwaway316943 6y ago
Cause or effect?
- coldtea 6y ago
  Cause.