4 ms·

Terrible article. It's been decades since anyone has taken Malthusianism -- the naïve version discussed in this article -- seriously. It was never the scientifi

Terrible article. It's been decades since anyone has taken Malthusianism -- the naïve version discussed in this article -- seriously. It was never the scientific consensus that we would see mass starvation from overpopulation. "Some prominent scientists believe x" is not proof of a consensus. Besides, why would it matter if the scientists were wrong? Being wrong might be rational if your belief is based on the best available evidence. Changing your mind doesn't mean you past belief was stupid or a lie. This is how science works. We all should have learned this in middle school. A version of overpopulation is still very much a concern. Obviously, most kinds of environmental destruction scale with population. Our current farming practices have managed to keep people fed, but only by draining aquifers and polluting waterways. Our current modes of transportation have managed to transport billions of people, but only by pumping out destructive amounts of carbon. Overpopulation is not, in itself, the problem. We know how to sustainably support a population much larger than the one that exists today. However, a large population is a multiplier to the destruction of all our unsustainable practices.

eplanit 5y ago
Why is it a goal to populate the world to a maximal amount? Yeah, we could make room for more people by restricting the lives of the others... but why? Why not identify a comfortable, sustainable level, and keep the level there? The earth is not crying out for more people to be on it, and no societal problems are solved by adding more (quite the opposite). Being told you can only have 2 kids max is less dystopian than outcomes from overpopulation.
- afgasgbui 5y ago
  This very topic has, unsurprisingly, been the subject of debate for a long time. You might want to read this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion >no societal problems are solved by adding more That's not true. Old people often need expensive support and may not be able to work as productively as they once did. If the population ages, the relative amount we spend on medical bills will go up and productivity will go down. On the whole you might think it's not worth it. That doesn't mean there's no benefit whatsoever.
bryanlarsen 5y ago
> but only by draining aquifers and polluting waterways. That's by choice, not by necessity. It would certainly be possible to feed 8 billion people in a more sustainable fashion, but it would cost more. Some people can't afford to pay more (or would need assistance to do so) and most don't want to pay more.

eplanit 5y ago

Why is it a goal to populate the world to a maximal amount? Yeah, we could make room for more people by restricting the lives of the others... but why? Why not identify a comfortable, sustainable level, and keep the level there? The earth is not crying out for more people to be on it, and no societal problems are solved by adding more (quite the opposite). Being told you can only have 2 kids max is less dystopian than outcomes from overpopulation.

afgasgbui 5y ago
This very topic has, unsurprisingly, been the subject of debate for a long time. You might want to read this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion >no societal problems are solved by adding more That's not true. Old people often need expensive support and may not be able to work as productively as they once did. If the population ages, the relative amount we spend on medical bills will go up and productivity will go down. On the whole you might think it's not worth it. That doesn't mean there's no benefit whatsoever.

bryanlarsen 5y ago

> but only by draining aquifers and polluting waterways. That's by choice, not by necessity. It would certainly be possible to feed 8 billion people in a more sustainable fashion, but it would cost more. Some people can't afford to pay more (or would need assistance to do so) and most don't want to pay more.