6 ms·

Significantly reducing population (to, say, 3 billion or less) is probably our best bet against climate change. However, to do so in any remotely ethical way ta

by Beldin 5y ago

Significantly reducing population (to, say, 3 billion or less) is probably our best bet against climate change. However, to do so in any remotely ethical way takes a lot of time. The next step is energy use: both reduction of consumption and reduction of wasted energy, ie. less energy, more effectively used. Things like insulation fall under this category. Because we're simply using too many resources for the world to remain unchanged in the medium term. We need to change. Changing the energy mix without addressing this just postpones the consequences of our actions - and not even that much. Basically: massive, world-wide societal changes are our best bet against climate change. Nuclear energy is our best bet to push the hot potato to (at best) the next generation.

csisnett 5y ago
Funny how people who think the earth overpopulated always think is other people who are overpopulating it, and not themselves. Wealth can be created. There's no limit to how much wealth can be created. Focusing on deleting the population is immoral.
- rahen 5y ago
  Nobody asked to delete population. The challenge is to allow people to access familial planning, make contraception and abortions more widespread in developing countries, and stop or at least reduce pro-natal fiscal policies in the West. Besides, morality is highly subjective.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  There's no limit to how much wealth can be created. Citation requested. That, and other statements of your comment, are articles of ideology and belief, not scientific statements. You're attempting to moralise what is a factual matter. That is as effective as a moral theory of disease, which is to say, not at all.
  - csisnett 5y ago
    Tell me what the limiting factor in creating wealth is then? I said it is immoral and that we have moral options that work. Or you think wealth can not be created?
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      I'd requested a citation. Apparently you have none, as I suspected. Ironic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639553
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  Ask the pro-depopulation who should not be allowed to have X+ children. I not those people, how many they maybe, pollute less all together than those blaming population growth. The issue is not with the population but the few who ruin everything for everyone.
- jedimastert 5y ago
  > Funny how people who think the earth overpopulated always think is other people who are overpopulating it, and not themselves. I would assume that most of these kinds of folks would be childless?
- tzamora 5y ago
  Why is inmoral? It's just population orderly control, and it will at some point just get constant so wealth will be limited to that constant and it will not grow anymore, economy doesn't need to grow to improve human welfare. It's completely sane to think and discuss how we can in someway "delete" population.
  - csisnett 5y ago
    What is that constant that you talk about? It is immoral to think the world would be better with fewer people because what you're really saying is, 3 Billion people or whatever number shouldn't exist. If you think not existing is a good thing then we wouldn't be having this conversation would we?
    - tzamora 5y ago
      I don't think anyone is saying those 3 billion people doesn't need to exists, no one. It's just give education teach people to have healthy families, the constant is a balance of population given by health, nature and economics.
      - csisnett 5y ago
        If you're saying the world is overpopulated by X then you're saying X amount of people who exist shouldn't exist. No matter how you paint it, you think it is a good thing for you to exist but not others. "Balance of health, nature and economics" nice words for basically "I want fewer poor people in the world so let's help them sterilize themselves" instead of creating wealth which isn't inherently immoral and would actually have a positive impact if done rightly
        Beldin 5y ago
        There are too many people on the planet as it is. Earth Overshoot Day, the day by which we've collectively used up whatever the Earth can generate in a year, is moving earlier in the year. In 2021, it was July 29th. From there on out, we're depleting the Earth's reserves - some of which can never come back. This is, in my view, immoral. That's how I view things without giving back. Your comments seem to try to twist the arguments into some sort of Thanos-snap, as if certain currently living people do not have a right to live. That is a strawman, no one is arguing that.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  > Wealth can be created. There's no limit to how much wealth can be created. Traditionally wealth means stuff or ability to acquire stuff, which inherently consumes resources. I'm assuming you are referring to a reinterpretation of the term "wealth" to mean "a number in a computer system"?
  - csisnett 5y ago
    Wealth is things that people value. Wealth creation is finished when individuals freely, and willingly exchange what they currently have (money) for valuables and continue to do that happily. That can be software so yes, given that software can be created without limits and that software wealth creation is a subset of total wealth creation that alone is proof that wealth creation is unlimited. However if you think material resources is the limiting factor then you're going to have to explain exactly what is going to stop scientists from developing new materials that can be used in new products or in existing products.
    - Beldin 5y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day
rahen 5y ago
I agree we should help curb down our fertility rate worldwide. However this would take at least 50 years before it starts showing effect. It's too long a time when facing an environmental emergency.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  Fertility rate is already decreasing fast, worldwide. The environment problem today is due to the carbon footprint of the rich, not of the majority.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    Well, the aspiration is for most countries citizens' to have the same amenities as the rich. Who are we to tell developing countries they can't have a TV, computer, phone, lights, washer/dryer, refrigerator, and HVAC in every home?
  - rahen 5y ago
    Not in Africa though, which will probably multiply its population by 4 to 1Ghab by the end of the century. Also their environmental footprint will multiply by a lot more than 4.
holoduke 5y ago
People who claim the world is overpopulated probably live in a big city and never really travelled the world. Because there are vast remote places thousands of miles across without anyone living. I believe the world can easily hold 100 billion people without issues. And besides, downscaling the world is not an option. Every organic structure needs to expand indefinitely. The only reason you would have decrease in population is world scale war. Sure we don't need that.
- natmaka 5y ago
  In many cases the very reason why some places aren't populated is that living there is difficult (lack of water/arable land, weather conditions...), and in many cases they are useful (as forests, grasslands...) for living beings thriving elsewhere.
- rahen 5y ago
  Not really, not all land can be used to host people. We need space to grow food, produce energy, have factories and offices, infrastructures... We're already using more than what the entire emerged land can provide us each year (with the help of massive supplies of fossil fuel and derived products, which will eventually run out). If we want to offer everyone a western lifestyle while being sustainable on the long run, the optimal world population is indeed estimated at around 1.5-2 billions (world population of 1950), and definitely under 3 billions. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/26/world-population-resources-paul-ehrlich https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/26/world-po... Or just Google "Optimal world population".
- demosito666 5y ago
  Currently 60% of landmass is being used by humans directly (human habitat, pastures, crops). Of remaining 40% about a half is still being continuously influenced by humans (residential forests, patches of land between roads, etc.). And the land is being used unsustainably and almost all unused land is beyond the polar circle. So no, the Earth can not hold 100B people with current level of consumption. And generally you don't want current consumption level, you want much higher standards, because majority of world's population is living in poverty. Which means that Earth can't hold 8B people either unless humans improve their land use efficiency significantly, which is unlikely. [1] https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/5/129 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/5/129
mynameishere 5y ago
That is obviously the only answer (unless cold fusion comes out soon) but it's also the only answer that can't make anyone money. (Except maybe Pfizer, if the tinhat crowd is right.)

by Beldin 5y ago

csisnett 5y ago

Funny how people who think the earth overpopulated always think is other people who are overpopulating it, and not themselves. Wealth can be created. There's no limit to how much wealth can be created. Focusing on deleting the population is immoral.

rahen 5y ago
Nobody asked to delete population. The challenge is to allow people to access familial planning, make contraception and abortions more widespread in developing countries, and stop or at least reduce pro-natal fiscal policies in the West. Besides, morality is highly subjective.
dredmorbius 5y ago
There's no limit to how much wealth can be created. Citation requested. That, and other statements of your comment, are articles of ideology and belief, not scientific statements. You're attempting to moralise what is a factual matter. That is as effective as a moral theory of disease, which is to say, not at all.
- csisnett 5y ago
  Tell me what the limiting factor in creating wealth is then? I said it is immoral and that we have moral options that work. Or you think wealth can not be created?
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    I'd requested a citation. Apparently you have none, as I suspected. Ironic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639553
rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
Ask the pro-depopulation who should not be allowed to have X+ children. I not those people, how many they maybe, pollute less all together than those blaming population growth. The issue is not with the population but the few who ruin everything for everyone.
jedimastert 5y ago
> Funny how people who think the earth overpopulated always think is other people who are overpopulating it, and not themselves. I would assume that most of these kinds of folks would be childless?
tzamora 5y ago
Why is inmoral? It's just population orderly control, and it will at some point just get constant so wealth will be limited to that constant and it will not grow anymore, economy doesn't need to grow to improve human welfare. It's completely sane to think and discuss how we can in someway "delete" population.
- csisnett 5y ago
  What is that constant that you talk about? It is immoral to think the world would be better with fewer people because what you're really saying is, 3 Billion people or whatever number shouldn't exist. If you think not existing is a good thing then we wouldn't be having this conversation would we?
  - tzamora 5y ago
    I don't think anyone is saying those 3 billion people doesn't need to exists, no one. It's just give education teach people to have healthy families, the constant is a balance of population given by health, nature and economics.
    - csisnett 5y ago
      If you're saying the world is overpopulated by X then you're saying X amount of people who exist shouldn't exist. No matter how you paint it, you think it is a good thing for you to exist but not others. "Balance of health, nature and economics" nice words for basically "I want fewer poor people in the world so let's help them sterilize themselves" instead of creating wealth which isn't inherently immoral and would actually have a positive impact if done rightly
      - Beldin 5y ago
        There are too many people on the planet as it is. Earth Overshoot Day, the day by which we've collectively used up whatever the Earth can generate in a year, is moving earlier in the year. In 2021, it was July 29th. From there on out, we're depleting the Earth's reserves - some of which can never come back. This is, in my view, immoral. That's how I view things without giving back. Your comments seem to try to twist the arguments into some sort of Thanos-snap, as if certain currently living people do not have a right to live. That is a strawman, no one is arguing that.
formerly_proven 5y ago
> Wealth can be created. There's no limit to how much wealth can be created. Traditionally wealth means stuff or ability to acquire stuff, which inherently consumes resources. I'm assuming you are referring to a reinterpretation of the term "wealth" to mean "a number in a computer system"?
- csisnett 5y ago
  Wealth is things that people value. Wealth creation is finished when individuals freely, and willingly exchange what they currently have (money) for valuables and continue to do that happily. That can be software so yes, given that software can be created without limits and that software wealth creation is a subset of total wealth creation that alone is proof that wealth creation is unlimited. However if you think material resources is the limiting factor then you're going to have to explain exactly what is going to stop scientists from developing new materials that can be used in new products or in existing products.
  - Beldin 5y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day

rahen 5y ago

I agree we should help curb down our fertility rate worldwide. However this would take at least 50 years before it starts showing effect. It's too long a time when facing an environmental emergency.

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
Fertility rate is already decreasing fast, worldwide. The environment problem today is due to the carbon footprint of the rich, not of the majority.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  Well, the aspiration is for most countries citizens' to have the same amenities as the rich. Who are we to tell developing countries they can't have a TV, computer, phone, lights, washer/dryer, refrigerator, and HVAC in every home?
- rahen 5y ago
  Not in Africa though, which will probably multiply its population by 4 to 1Ghab by the end of the century. Also their environmental footprint will multiply by a lot more than 4.

holoduke 5y ago

People who claim the world is overpopulated probably live in a big city and never really travelled the world. Because there are vast remote places thousands of miles across without anyone living. I believe the world can easily hold 100 billion people without issues. And besides, downscaling the world is not an option. Every organic structure needs to expand indefinitely. The only reason you would have decrease in population is world scale war. Sure we don't need that.

natmaka 5y ago
In many cases the very reason why some places aren't populated is that living there is difficult (lack of water/arable land, weather conditions...), and in many cases they are useful (as forests, grasslands...) for living beings thriving elsewhere.
rahen 5y ago
Not really, not all land can be used to host people. We need space to grow food, produce energy, have factories and offices, infrastructures... We're already using more than what the entire emerged land can provide us each year (with the help of massive supplies of fossil fuel and derived products, which will eventually run out). If we want to offer everyone a western lifestyle while being sustainable on the long run, the optimal world population is indeed estimated at around 1.5-2 billions (world population of 1950), and definitely under 3 billions. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/26/world-population-resources-paul-ehrlich https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/26/world-po... Or just Google "Optimal world population".
demosito666 5y ago
Currently 60% of landmass is being used by humans directly (human habitat, pastures, crops). Of remaining 40% about a half is still being continuously influenced by humans (residential forests, patches of land between roads, etc.). And the land is being used unsustainably and almost all unused land is beyond the polar circle. So no, the Earth can not hold 100B people with current level of consumption. And generally you don't want current consumption level, you want much higher standards, because majority of world's population is living in poverty. Which means that Earth can't hold 8B people either unless humans improve their land use efficiency significantly, which is unlikely. [1] https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/5/129 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/5/129

mynameishere 5y ago

That is obviously the only answer (unless cold fusion comes out soon) but it's also the only answer that can't make anyone money. (Except maybe Pfizer, if the tinhat crowd is right.)