4 ms·

I'd respect this position more if its proponents were willing to practice what they preach.

giantg2 5y ago
Like what exactly? Much of this requires large scale policies. Without those, the lowering of demand lowers prices and allows others to increase their consumption. The vast majority people aren't going to voluntarily reduce their quality of living. Thus it will likely happen when the resources are expended and it's too late.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Do you drive? You can move to a place where you don't need to. Do you take airplanes? Why?
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    Focusing on mass politics and not individual choices is good but > We have too many people is the tagling of rich suburban Malthusians who don't believe in any of that. So if that is not you, best not to tarnish yourself with that phrase. Population is not that big a deal because if current trends continue and we don't boil the planet first, the population is on track to peak and then decline. > dramatically reduce the quality of life I would argue suburban life in fact sucks terribly, and walking + biking + trains is a far superior way of life. So I don't like this "sacrifice" framing at all. Yes, changing the material basis of society will be a culture shock and upsetting to some, but in no way need the replacement be "worse" on the whole. If we do everything else and then really miss more inter-continental travel, let's build a goddamn multi-track railway across the bearing Bering Strait. There's no reason we cannot afford it!
    - giantg2 5y ago
      The first thing to do is establish how many people the world can sustainably support. I haven't seen any numbers about that. All the estimates include industrial practices and many include assumptions that we will have technological breakthroughs. The support estimates range from about 9-12 billion, with peak population estimated around 11.5 billion. Still no mention of sustainable numbers. It seems you're using Malthusians as an insult without going into what is wrong with the general concept that population increases could outpace resource availability, especially given that resources are constrained. I wouldn't say I'm a strict believer in Malthusian theory. But some of it is looking likely when you see many of the fish species we eat have declined by 90% or more, aquifers are at risk in the next 30 years, arable land is being lost, etc. You focused on transportation, which is something, but not really about how many people the earth can support. Most people rarely fly, so I see that as mostly a moot point to most individuals (potential for a policy change). Trains could be a great replacement option - but again, something that requires massive infrastructure changes to be feasible. Could I move to a place that would require little to no driving, yet it would require giving up more than just driving. I wouldn't be able to participate in various hobbies, I'd have to quit my job, and worst of all live in a dirty crime ridden city (yeah yeah, over the top but some truth to it here in the US if we're talking about big enough cities to accommodate a large number of my interests without needing to drive. What we're really talking about is food and water, and somewhat of other constrained natural resources (metals for EVs/batteries, lumber, etc). In the case of water, we are depleting many aquifers around. This will eventually require lifestyle changes like rationing water, collecting rain water, no lawns, etc. And it could mean a reduction in crop output while populations are near their peak. For food, do we do away with foods that require a lot of water, processing, or land? Do we eliminate meat and stop fishing the oceans? These are huge lifestyle changes.
      - hedora 5y ago
        It is an ill-posed question. We're approaching peak population, and technological breakthroughs continue to greatly increase the number of people the planet can support. A better question is how we minimize / reverse the ongoing damage being done by the current population.
      - Ericson2314 5y ago
        Asking there to be fewer people while: 1. Fearmongering about crime in cities, which is not a a real issue. 2. Overhyping the costs of not driving in general. (No one sent you can't use a car x times a month to do your rural hobby.) 3. Most fundamentally at all, neglecting that American norms of crazy amounts of driving are out of line with other developed countries too. Is morally bankrupt. "Technology breakthroughs" is a complete red-herring when we already have the technology to be vastly more sustainable per capita if only you weren't wedded to an insane suburban lifestyle. If I were some developing country person with 10 kids living in poverty, why would I give a flying fuck about some SUV driver's crocodile tears? The mast politics are only possible if you are willing to give something up in return for what you are asking for.
- bobsmooth 5y ago
  >Like what exactly? I don't know, you're the one that says there's too many people.

Like what exactly? Much of this requires large scale policies. Without those, the lowering of demand lowers prices and allows others to increase their consumption. The vast majority people aren't going to voluntarily reduce their quality of living. Thus it will likely happen when the resources are expended and it's too late.

Ericson2314 5y ago
Do you drive? You can move to a place where you don't need to. Do you take airplanes? Why?
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Focusing on mass politics and not individual choices is good but > We have too many people is the tagling of rich suburban Malthusians who don't believe in any of that. So if that is not you, best not to tarnish yourself with that phrase. Population is not that big a deal because if current trends continue and we don't boil the planet first, the population is on track to peak and then decline. > dramatically reduce the quality of life I would argue suburban life in fact sucks terribly, and walking + biking + trains is a far superior way of life. So I don't like this "sacrifice" framing at all. Yes, changing the material basis of society will be a culture shock and upsetting to some, but in no way need the replacement be "worse" on the whole. If we do everything else and then really miss more inter-continental travel, let's build a goddamn multi-track railway across the bearing Bering Strait. There's no reason we cannot afford it!
  - giantg2 5y ago
    The first thing to do is establish how many people the world can sustainably support. I haven't seen any numbers about that. All the estimates include industrial practices and many include assumptions that we will have technological breakthroughs. The support estimates range from about 9-12 billion, with peak population estimated around 11.5 billion. Still no mention of sustainable numbers. It seems you're using Malthusians as an insult without going into what is wrong with the general concept that population increases could outpace resource availability, especially given that resources are constrained. I wouldn't say I'm a strict believer in Malthusian theory. But some of it is looking likely when you see many of the fish species we eat have declined by 90% or more, aquifers are at risk in the next 30 years, arable land is being lost, etc. You focused on transportation, which is something, but not really about how many people the earth can support. Most people rarely fly, so I see that as mostly a moot point to most individuals (potential for a policy change). Trains could be a great replacement option - but again, something that requires massive infrastructure changes to be feasible. Could I move to a place that would require little to no driving, yet it would require giving up more than just driving. I wouldn't be able to participate in various hobbies, I'd have to quit my job, and worst of all live in a dirty crime ridden city (yeah yeah, over the top but some truth to it here in the US if we're talking about big enough cities to accommodate a large number of my interests without needing to drive. What we're really talking about is food and water, and somewhat of other constrained natural resources (metals for EVs/batteries, lumber, etc). In the case of water, we are depleting many aquifers around. This will eventually require lifestyle changes like rationing water, collecting rain water, no lawns, etc. And it could mean a reduction in crop output while populations are near their peak. For food, do we do away with foods that require a lot of water, processing, or land? Do we eliminate meat and stop fishing the oceans? These are huge lifestyle changes.
    - hedora 5y ago
      It is an ill-posed question. We're approaching peak population, and technological breakthroughs continue to greatly increase the number of people the planet can support. A better question is how we minimize / reverse the ongoing damage being done by the current population.
    - Ericson2314 5y ago
      Asking there to be fewer people while: 1. Fearmongering about crime in cities, which is not a a real issue. 2. Overhyping the costs of not driving in general. (No one sent you can't use a car x times a month to do your rural hobby.) 3. Most fundamentally at all, neglecting that American norms of crazy amounts of driving are out of line with other developed countries too. Is morally bankrupt. "Technology breakthroughs" is a complete red-herring when we already have the technology to be vastly more sustainable per capita if only you weren't wedded to an insane suburban lifestyle. If I were some developing country person with 10 kids living in poverty, why would I give a flying fuck about some SUV driver's crocodile tears? The mast politics are only possible if you are willing to give something up in return for what you are asking for.
bobsmooth 5y ago
>Like what exactly? I don't know, you're the one that says there's too many people.