3 ms·

> You’re also ignoring that more people has led to less poverty and the current world is the richest it has ever been Only if you consider resources are unlimi

> You’re also ignoring that more people has led to less poverty and the current world is the richest it has ever been Only if you consider resources are unlimited, and the environment has no value. If you put available non-renewable resources and the environment on the balance sheet, the result is different.

zmgsabst 5y ago
> If you put available non-renewable resources and the environment on the balance sheet, the result is different. Okay — so show me that. What exactly is different if you account for more people making us the wealthiest, least starving time in history? How exactly is the outcome negative? What exactly means that fewer people is the solution to our problems, when historically the opposite has been true? Again, you’re not showing me that — you’re asserting it as an article of faith you expect me to just believe on your say so.
- yodsanklai 5y ago
  Suppose you're born on a planet that has some amount of natural resources and some characteristic that makes it liveable. Now if you consume part of the resources to produce stuff, and pollute the environment as a side effect, you're richer of the amount of stuff that you produced, but you're also poorer of the non-renewable resources that you consume, and you'll have to pay for the environment at some point too. For instance, in the case of global warming, there will be migration of populations, raise of ocean level, extreme weather events, all of this will have a cost that we'll have to pay eventually. All of this has to be taken into account if you want to assess the merit and sustainability of our production system and demographic growth. Putting it another way, we're rich because we were given a huge loan in the form of natural resources and a hospitable environment, but this is ending. Unfortunately, there's no perpetual growth in a finite world. This is a mathematical truth.
  - zmgsabst 5y ago
    > All of this has to be taken into account if you want to assess the merit and sustainability of our production system and demographic growth. Sure — so show me the actual account. You’re just hand-waving about possible costs without showing they’re unsustainable on reasonable timelines OR that fewer people would help the problem at all. That’s not a rational basis to want fewer humans. > this is ending. Unfortunately, there's no perpetual growth in a finite world. This is a mathematical truth. Discussing abstract concepts like limits without showing that we’re near those limits is merely dogmatic belief — it doesn’t justify anything. That’s nihilistic fantasy.
    - yodsanklai 5y ago
      > Discussing abstract concepts like limits without showing that we’re near those limits is merely dogmatic belief There are plenty of references on the topic. You can start with "The limits to growth" which is 50 years old and which is revisited from time to time. https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/the-limits-to-growth-at-50-from-scenarios-to-unfolding-reality/ https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/the-limits-to-growth-... Regarding global warming, you can look up "Kaya identity": https://theconversation.com/curb-population-growth-to-tackle-climate-change-now-thats-a-tough-ask-153382 https://theconversation.com/curb-population-growth-to-tackle... It's impossible to give exact prediction and timelines, but it's certain that the perpetual growth model isn't sustainable and most likely, limits will materialise within the next decades.
      - zmgsabst 5y ago
        > It's impossible to give exact prediction and timelines Then arguing we need fewer people now based on that isn’t reasonable. > it's certain that the perpetual growth model isn't sustainable In the same sense that heat death of the universe will eventually happen — but isn’t necessarily relevant to us here and now. > most likely, limits will materialise within the next decades How can you conclude that when you previously said you can’t “ give exact prediction and timelines”? To me, you seem to be repeating the same “the world is ending!” nihilism that has always permeated society.

zmgsabst 5y ago

> If you put available non-renewable resources and the environment on the balance sheet, the result is different. Okay — so show me that. What exactly is different if you account for more people making us the wealthiest, least starving time in history? How exactly is the outcome negative? What exactly means that fewer people is the solution to our problems, when historically the opposite has been true? Again, you’re not showing me that — you’re asserting it as an article of faith you expect me to just believe on your say so.

yodsanklai 5y ago
Suppose you're born on a planet that has some amount of natural resources and some characteristic that makes it liveable. Now if you consume part of the resources to produce stuff, and pollute the environment as a side effect, you're richer of the amount of stuff that you produced, but you're also poorer of the non-renewable resources that you consume, and you'll have to pay for the environment at some point too. For instance, in the case of global warming, there will be migration of populations, raise of ocean level, extreme weather events, all of this will have a cost that we'll have to pay eventually. All of this has to be taken into account if you want to assess the merit and sustainability of our production system and demographic growth. Putting it another way, we're rich because we were given a huge loan in the form of natural resources and a hospitable environment, but this is ending. Unfortunately, there's no perpetual growth in a finite world. This is a mathematical truth.
- zmgsabst 5y ago
  > All of this has to be taken into account if you want to assess the merit and sustainability of our production system and demographic growth. Sure — so show me the actual account. You’re just hand-waving about possible costs without showing they’re unsustainable on reasonable timelines OR that fewer people would help the problem at all. That’s not a rational basis to want fewer humans. > this is ending. Unfortunately, there's no perpetual growth in a finite world. This is a mathematical truth. Discussing abstract concepts like limits without showing that we’re near those limits is merely dogmatic belief — it doesn’t justify anything. That’s nihilistic fantasy.
  - yodsanklai 5y ago
    > Discussing abstract concepts like limits without showing that we’re near those limits is merely dogmatic belief There are plenty of references on the topic. You can start with "The limits to growth" which is 50 years old and which is revisited from time to time. https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/the-limits-to-growth-at-50-from-scenarios-to-unfolding-reality/ https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/the-limits-to-growth-... Regarding global warming, you can look up "Kaya identity": https://theconversation.com/curb-population-growth-to-tackle-climate-change-now-thats-a-tough-ask-153382 https://theconversation.com/curb-population-growth-to-tackle... It's impossible to give exact prediction and timelines, but it's certain that the perpetual growth model isn't sustainable and most likely, limits will materialise within the next decades.
    - zmgsabst 5y ago
      > It's impossible to give exact prediction and timelines Then arguing we need fewer people now based on that isn’t reasonable. > it's certain that the perpetual growth model isn't sustainable In the same sense that heat death of the universe will eventually happen — but isn’t necessarily relevant to us here and now. > most likely, limits will materialise within the next decades How can you conclude that when you previously said you can’t “ give exact prediction and timelines”? To me, you seem to be repeating the same “the world is ending!” nihilism that has always permeated society.