4 ms·

The quote was literally a copy & paste from the parent post. No distortion there. I am genuinely curious why people think we should aim to grow even more in num

by drclau 5y ago

The quote was literally a copy & paste from the parent post. No distortion there. I am genuinely curious why people think we should aim to grow even more in numbers. More so, I am genuinely curious what the same people propose we do when we reach whatever they consider to be the maximum sustainable population. Clearly, we can't grow infinitely in a limited space.

goatlover 5y ago
If we stick around long enough, then colonizing and terraforming the solar system where possible would provide most of the growth. Luna, Mars, Venus, the Belt, and some moons around the gas giants would be candidates. Eventually, we might figure out ways to expand to other nearby star systems with good enough tech to support it.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  We can't get people to survive in a closed environment on Earth, or even get scientists to create a liveable ecosystem in a lab... With all the resources available at hands. I'm not actively against Mars colonization only because I trust it will fail and give us a good reason to care about the unique and fragile habitat we have here on Earth. I'm not hoping for a failure, I'm just intimately convinced that we won't manage to survive on other rocks without really trying here first.
  - goatlover 5y ago
    I'm talking long term, if human civilization lasts for thousands of more years. Then it becomes more reasonable. I agree that this century it's a much harder sell and largely out of reach. We should focus most of our efforts on Earth for now, without abandoning some space exploration. Space programs, telescopes and SETI are good things we should continue doing.
rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
I didn't say we should be billions more. I said we could if we cared about our environment. I simply believe it's more effective to explain the danger we face and get people to really care, than to curb population growth. The first reason is that it takes more energy to fight the desire to reproduce than to get people to live responsibly (at least not more than our environment can bear). Moreover, if you somehow get people to reproduce less than they desire (without causing to much frustration), you'll still have to educate them about the sustainability issues (aka our way of life). Why not directly address the way of life challenge, then? People don't want many children when they know what's coming (your first child's future is in jeopardy, let's have more!). It's no coincidence that those who have/want the most children are the least aware of the biodiversity/climate problem.

by drclau 5y ago

goatlover 5y ago

If we stick around long enough, then colonizing and terraforming the solar system where possible would provide most of the growth. Luna, Mars, Venus, the Belt, and some moons around the gas giants would be candidates. Eventually, we might figure out ways to expand to other nearby star systems with good enough tech to support it.

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
We can't get people to survive in a closed environment on Earth, or even get scientists to create a liveable ecosystem in a lab... With all the resources available at hands. I'm not actively against Mars colonization only because I trust it will fail and give us a good reason to care about the unique and fragile habitat we have here on Earth. I'm not hoping for a failure, I'm just intimately convinced that we won't manage to survive on other rocks without really trying here first.
- goatlover 5y ago
  I'm talking long term, if human civilization lasts for thousands of more years. Then it becomes more reasonable. I agree that this century it's a much harder sell and largely out of reach. We should focus most of our efforts on Earth for now, without abandoning some space exploration. Space programs, telescopes and SETI are good things we should continue doing.

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago

I didn't say we should be billions more. I said we could if we cared about our environment. I simply believe it's more effective to explain the danger we face and get people to really care, than to curb population growth. The first reason is that it takes more energy to fight the desire to reproduce than to get people to live responsibly (at least not more than our environment can bear). Moreover, if you somehow get people to reproduce less than they desire (without causing to much frustration), you'll still have to educate them about the sustainability issues (aka our way of life). Why not directly address the way of life challenge, then? People don't want many children when they know what's coming (your first child's future is in jeopardy, let's have more!). It's no coincidence that those who have/want the most children are the least aware of the biodiversity/climate problem.