3 ms·

> Didn't you notice that multiplying and expanding is the quality of all life, as a phenomenon? That's just what species are selected for. If you have two comp

> Didn't you notice that multiplying and expanding is the quality of all life, as a phenomenon? That's just what species are selected for. If you have two competing populations and one multiplies and expands just slightly better than the other, everything else equal, then that one will eventually outcompete the slower one. But it does not have to be that way. Humans are the top predator, so no competition here. We could make do with limiting expansion if we chose to. It's still life, but without this "quality" that you seem to consider a necessity.

throwaway316943 5y ago
Out survives We have no predators but we do have a lot of existential threats. The more we spread out the more chances we have of surviving. If we sit on our hands and stay put we’ll wind up like the dinosaurs one way or another.
- ganafagol 5y ago
  There are other alternatives beyond "spreading out" and "sitting on our hands". Solving world hunger does not need expansion. Stopping climate change does not need expansion. Preventing the upcoming antibiotics crisis does not need expansion. To the contrary, expansion makes all those things worse or has even started them in the first place.
  - nine_k 5y ago
    Stopping world hunger does not need more food, or even fewer people. Humans produce quite enough food to feed everyone already. The problem is distribution. This problem is twofold. First is that much food is produced far from many poorly nourished people. This problem is totally solvable by modern transport. There are enough charity donations to prevent hunger everywhere. Second, and most importantly, it's the social structure what prevents ending the hunger where the hunger still is. People prevent production and distribution of food in order to keep the social structures where they are on top, or are fighting to be on top. They themselves are not hungry, and don't care about the rest much.
    - ganafagol 5y ago
      Exactly. These are social and political problems. They won't be solved by expanding. On the contrary, expanding makes them worse.

throwaway316943 5y ago

Out survives We have no predators but we do have a lot of existential threats. The more we spread out the more chances we have of surviving. If we sit on our hands and stay put we’ll wind up like the dinosaurs one way or another.

ganafagol 5y ago
There are other alternatives beyond "spreading out" and "sitting on our hands". Solving world hunger does not need expansion. Stopping climate change does not need expansion. Preventing the upcoming antibiotics crisis does not need expansion. To the contrary, expansion makes all those things worse or has even started them in the first place.
- nine_k 5y ago
  Stopping world hunger does not need more food, or even fewer people. Humans produce quite enough food to feed everyone already. The problem is distribution. This problem is twofold. First is that much food is produced far from many poorly nourished people. This problem is totally solvable by modern transport. There are enough charity donations to prevent hunger everywhere. Second, and most importantly, it's the social structure what prevents ending the hunger where the hunger still is. People prevent production and distribution of food in order to keep the social structures where they are on top, or are fighting to be on top. They themselves are not hungry, and don't care about the rest much.
  - ganafagol 5y ago
    Exactly. These are social and political problems. They won't be solved by expanding. On the contrary, expanding makes them worse.