4 ms·

You're naive lol. First, what over-population? There are huge ares of unpopulated land in the U.S. Many states are largely empty. Second, China just expanded th

by proc0 5y ago

You're naive lol. First, what over-population? There are huge ares of unpopulated land in the U.S. Many states are largely empty. Second, China just expanded their child policy. You think young people today have it hard in terms of competition? Good luck to your kid in a couple decades, because it will be that much more harder thanks to the U.S. slowly dying off. I have no kids thanks to a decade and a half of being beaten down by the economy and people who would rather see me suffer because I look like people whose ancestors did bad things. I'm not complaining though, the next few generations will suffer compounding consequences.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
It's not a space issue, it's a resource issue [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Less people means less resource contention. [1] https://www.nationalgeographic.org/photo/biodiv-clearcut/ https://www.nationalgeographic.org/photo/biodiv-clearcut/ [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/06/phosphate-fertiliser-crisis-threatens-world-food-supply https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/06/phosphat... [3] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/sea-running-out-of-fish-despite-nations-pledges-to-stop https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/sea-runni... [4] https://www.siwi.org/latest/the-worlds-natural-aquifers-at-risk/ https://www.siwi.org/latest/the-worlds-natural-aquifers-at-r... [5] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/groundwater-depletion-global-food-supply https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/groundwat... [6] https://www.idtechex.com/en/research-article/the-meat-industry-is-unsustainable/20231 https://www.idtechex.com/en/research-article/the-meat-indust... [7] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/36/21994 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/36/21994
- proc0 5y ago
  Yet China wants more population. Are people criticizing that policity because lack of resources? If lack of resources is true, where is the outrage here? It seems more like some people are not willing to sacrifice lifestyle and instead sacrifice human population, not to mention there is huge asymmetry in the world when it comes to population.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Haunted_Cabbage 5y ago
  Those are all great issues that definitely deserve attention. However, they're not problems that are caused by population. Everything you've listed are problems of the economic and cultural systems currently in place. None of these issues improves with a lower population. Edit: Your comment has radically changed since I left my comment. My point is the same.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    > Edit: Your comment has radically changed since I left my comment. My point is the same. For historical purposes, my previous comment revision was a thesis without links, and I replaced it instead with links to make the same point. My entire kingdom for HN comment version history support. In short, very few will willingly forgo resources and give up quality of life, and for those who do will have those resources consumed by others (China harvesting the world's oceans, Brazil clear cutting the rainforest, etc).
    - Haunted_Cabbage 5y ago
      My point isn't that people forgo resources but better utilize the efficiency and technology we've developed. We can maintain and better the quality of life for everyone. For example, at one point the US was wasting 51% of fresh food that has been distributed. Working on improving that distribution network can reduce food costs and waste. We have the technology.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
meristohm 5y ago
Yikes. I’m sorry you’re suffering. Is it systematic oppression? To what degree is it your choices and actions? What are you grateful for? There’s no perfect time to have a child. We eventually decided to just go for it and scrambled to make it work. I reckon I’ve grown up more in the last three years than the previous twenty, and I’m olay with that. When I was heavy into videogames I couldn’t imagine not being so, and now I’m more free to shed/change habits since I focus on the wellbeing of someone other than me. Regarding huge areas/acres of unpopulated land and “largely empty” states: there are other, non-human persons living there, and I think that’s grand. We may not agree on this. I’m all for rewilding (see E. O. Wilson’s “half earth” idea and George Monbiot’s book Feral) and letting a lot of land be relatively empty of human settlement (with room for stewards, and tourism). I’m thankful for this life, and I feel the amount of resources I consume does not scale well, given my values.
- proc0 5y ago
  > Is it systematic oppression? Yes, in that I was unlucky to have been born with a physical trait where I'm the "oppressor", when in fact I'm an immigrant having nothing to do with U.S. history. This affected my social and economic life in ways that I feel are unfair, but FML I guess. > the amount of resources I consume does not scale well, given my values. So you're solution is to scale back on humans instead, when other countries are scaling up their population with impunity. Where is the outrage at China's child policy update (unless you're Chinese, in which case, good for you I guess)? Is that side of the world somehow immune to over-population?
  - meristohm 5y ago
    I favor reducing our collective impact so that other life may also thrive. If enough of us scale back our resource-use enough then we don’t need to intentionally limit our numbers. I’m not outraged, but saddened by what we’ve done and continue to do. I’m also excited/interested/awed by what we’ve done and contribute to do, and curious about our potential. I’d like for us to stretch our collective story unbroken (unlike what my ancestors did to indigenous groups in North America, for example, significantly reducing language and oral-history diversity) for another ten thousand years or more, why not? I try not to be outraged (nor to dwell in sadness) over things I have little to no influence over. I’m practicing letting the waves of emotion crash and subside.

by proc0 5y ago

toomuchtodo 5y ago

It's not a space issue, it's a resource issue [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Less people means less resource contention. [1] https://www.nationalgeographic.org/photo/biodiv-clearcut/ https://www.nationalgeographic.org/photo/biodiv-clearcut/ [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/06/phosphate-fertiliser-crisis-threatens-world-food-supply https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/06/phosphat... [3] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/sea-running-out-of-fish-despite-nations-pledges-to-stop https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/sea-runni... [4] https://www.siwi.org/latest/the-worlds-natural-aquifers-at-risk/ https://www.siwi.org/latest/the-worlds-natural-aquifers-at-r... [5] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/groundwater-depletion-global-food-supply https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/groundwat... [6] https://www.idtechex.com/en/research-article/the-meat-industry-is-unsustainable/20231 https://www.idtechex.com/en/research-article/the-meat-indust... [7] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/36/21994 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/36/21994

proc0 5y ago
Yet China wants more population. Are people criticizing that policity because lack of resources? If lack of resources is true, where is the outrage here? It seems more like some people are not willing to sacrifice lifestyle and instead sacrifice human population, not to mention there is huge asymmetry in the world when it comes to population.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Haunted_Cabbage 5y ago
Those are all great issues that definitely deserve attention. However, they're not problems that are caused by population. Everything you've listed are problems of the economic and cultural systems currently in place. None of these issues improves with a lower population. Edit: Your comment has radically changed since I left my comment. My point is the same.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  > Edit: Your comment has radically changed since I left my comment. My point is the same. For historical purposes, my previous comment revision was a thesis without links, and I replaced it instead with links to make the same point. My entire kingdom for HN comment version history support. In short, very few will willingly forgo resources and give up quality of life, and for those who do will have those resources consumed by others (China harvesting the world's oceans, Brazil clear cutting the rainforest, etc).
  - Haunted_Cabbage 5y ago
    My point isn't that people forgo resources but better utilize the efficiency and technology we've developed. We can maintain and better the quality of life for everyone. For example, at one point the US was wasting 51% of fresh food that has been distributed. Working on improving that distribution network can reduce food costs and waste. We have the technology.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

meristohm 5y ago

Yikes. I’m sorry you’re suffering. Is it systematic oppression? To what degree is it your choices and actions? What are you grateful for? There’s no perfect time to have a child. We eventually decided to just go for it and scrambled to make it work. I reckon I’ve grown up more in the last three years than the previous twenty, and I’m olay with that. When I was heavy into videogames I couldn’t imagine not being so, and now I’m more free to shed/change habits since I focus on the wellbeing of someone other than me. Regarding huge areas/acres of unpopulated land and “largely empty” states: there are other, non-human persons living there, and I think that’s grand. We may not agree on this. I’m all for rewilding (see E. O. Wilson’s “half earth” idea and George Monbiot’s book Feral) and letting a lot of land be relatively empty of human settlement (with room for stewards, and tourism). I’m thankful for this life, and I feel the amount of resources I consume does not scale well, given my values.

proc0 5y ago
> Is it systematic oppression? Yes, in that I was unlucky to have been born with a physical trait where I'm the "oppressor", when in fact I'm an immigrant having nothing to do with U.S. history. This affected my social and economic life in ways that I feel are unfair, but FML I guess. > the amount of resources I consume does not scale well, given my values. So you're solution is to scale back on humans instead, when other countries are scaling up their population with impunity. Where is the outrage at China's child policy update (unless you're Chinese, in which case, good for you I guess)? Is that side of the world somehow immune to over-population?
- meristohm 5y ago
  I favor reducing our collective impact so that other life may also thrive. If enough of us scale back our resource-use enough then we don’t need to intentionally limit our numbers. I’m not outraged, but saddened by what we’ve done and continue to do. I’m also excited/interested/awed by what we’ve done and contribute to do, and curious about our potential. I’d like for us to stretch our collective story unbroken (unlike what my ancestors did to indigenous groups in North America, for example, significantly reducing language and oral-history diversity) for another ten thousand years or more, why not? I try not to be outraged (nor to dwell in sadness) over things I have little to no influence over. I’m practicing letting the waves of emotion crash and subside.