3 ms·

I agree with you but humans are selfish and destructive. It is always down-voted but the only true solution is less humans. Of course, we could change but histo

I agree with you but humans are selfish and destructive. It is always down-voted but the only true solution is less humans. Of course, we could change but history has shown we have no desire to do so and worse, are accelerating our greediness. The thing is that the earth has started to change based on our over-consumption. One way or the other, there will be a lot less humans on this planet in some hundreds of years from now.

nine_k 5y ago
Have you noticed that the whole purpose of life as a phenomenon is self-sustaining and proliferation? Forcing lower numbers of humans is not unheard of; usually this is considered cruel. Mass killings aside, take a look at policies enforced by India and China in 1970-80s. Choosing not to have kids is myopic: if your genes make you more conscious and thus caring about the planet as a whole, removing them from the gene pool lowers the chances that next generations would share these traits of yours. The best medicine found so far is exactly what the ultra-green do not like: urbanization, education, higher standards of living, minimal numbers of people doing the traditional countryside agriculture. This puts reproduction rates safely below the replacement rate all over the world, no matter what culture and religion.
- chasd00 5y ago
  i would say the purpose of life is only proliferation, it's the environment that provides the negative feed back for "self-sustaining". For example, deer with no predators will proliferate until they starve to death and numbers go down to what can be sustained by their environment. If the environment can't sustain any then the population count goes to 0 to match.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Maybe the ultra-greens are against urbanization and I think there is merit to that. But the other topics don't really fit. You can put every living human on Sicily and still have space. The problem is that 99% would have died of thirst after a few days. I think today is earth overshoot day, so we used resources the earth could recoup within a year. That problem isn't solved with everyone moving into cities, it is externalities and our resource consumption. Maybe cities are a few percent more efficient, but it doesn't really matter that much. Cities are also relatively unhealthy in most cases. Living expectation are countered by the proximity of medical professionals perhaps. edit: It is indeed today: https://www.overshootday.org/ https://www.overshootday.org/
  - nine_k 5y ago
    My reaction was on the idea of "too many people". I posit that urbanization, etc solves this problem within 100-150 years by natural means.

nine_k 5y ago

Have you noticed that the whole purpose of life as a phenomenon is self-sustaining and proliferation? Forcing lower numbers of humans is not unheard of; usually this is considered cruel. Mass killings aside, take a look at policies enforced by India and China in 1970-80s. Choosing not to have kids is myopic: if your genes make you more conscious and thus caring about the planet as a whole, removing them from the gene pool lowers the chances that next generations would share these traits of yours. The best medicine found so far is exactly what the ultra-green do not like: urbanization, education, higher standards of living, minimal numbers of people doing the traditional countryside agriculture. This puts reproduction rates safely below the replacement rate all over the world, no matter what culture and religion.

chasd00 5y ago
i would say the purpose of life is only proliferation, it's the environment that provides the negative feed back for "self-sustaining". For example, deer with no predators will proliferate until they starve to death and numbers go down to what can be sustained by their environment. If the environment can't sustain any then the population count goes to 0 to match.
raxxorrax 5y ago
Maybe the ultra-greens are against urbanization and I think there is merit to that. But the other topics don't really fit. You can put every living human on Sicily and still have space. The problem is that 99% would have died of thirst after a few days. I think today is earth overshoot day, so we used resources the earth could recoup within a year. That problem isn't solved with everyone moving into cities, it is externalities and our resource consumption. Maybe cities are a few percent more efficient, but it doesn't really matter that much. Cities are also relatively unhealthy in most cases. Living expectation are countered by the proximity of medical professionals perhaps. edit: It is indeed today: https://www.overshootday.org/ https://www.overshootday.org/
- nine_k 5y ago
  My reaction was on the idea of "too many people". I posit that urbanization, etc solves this problem within 100-150 years by natural means.