4 ms·

I find it interesting that limiting human population rarely comes up in these discussions. It seems to me that it would address tons of problems regarding envi

I find it interesting that limiting human population rarely comes up in these discussions. It seems to me that it would address tons of problems regarding environment, housing, etc. Is there just a consensus that nobody can think of a workable way to do this without catastrophe / great evil?

showerst 4y ago
We have enough clean water, (potential) power, food, and space to keep many times the earth's current population healthy and happy. The issue is that those things are not distributed in the same amounts and places as people. While unimaginably difficult, this is a substantially easier problem to solve than choosing some people who can't reproduce.
- jdkee 4y ago
  Nature may ultimately solve that for us.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bumby 4y ago
>limiting human population The choice of reproduction is generally considered a human right. The U.N. has adopted the following verbiage within their humans rights: >"couples have a basic human right to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children"[1] Unless, of course, you are simply saying people should choose at the individual level to limit their children. [1] https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/theme/rights/index.asp https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/theme/righ...
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  There are 121 million unintended pregnancies per year per the UN. Maybe help those folks not have kids they don’t want? People themselves want to limit their fertility and simply don’t have robust options or socioeconomic support to do so. > Nearly half of all pregnancies, totalling 121 million each year worldwide, are unintended, according to a new report published on Wednesday by the UN’s sexual and reproductive health agency, UNFPA. > For example, an estimated 257 million women around the world who want to avoid pregnancy are not using safe, modern methods of contraception. https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1115062 https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1115062
s_dev 4y ago
The elephant in the room is that limiting population means limiting freedom and curtailing human rights. However I also think it's an acceptable trade off but not one to be made lightly. We do have declining populations in Northern Europe but honestly I'm not sure how much of the world can really emulate the likes of Norway.
- elliekelly 4y ago
  If only there were a large group of people, say half the population, maybe, who were actively begging for their governments to stop infringing their rights and allow them to choose when and whether they have children. Then we could limit population without limiting peoples' freedom and curtailing human rights. If only...
mschuster91 4y ago
Because as long as we have capitalism it will be the poor and minorities that will be restricted from reproduction. The US had had its fair share of eugenics in its history [1], and the Nazis have shown the worst examples by far. Besides, it is not even necessary to delve into the questionable ethics and side effects of eugenics, forced sterilizations, one-child policies and similar ideas that have been tried and proven catastrophic when the Earth has way more than enough resources to feed all the humans on it, even in Africa. The problem is that we manage the resources we have completely wrong: - the US has utterly absurd and wasteful grandfathered water and other natural resource rights, and obviously companies exploit them simply because they can and because Nestle in particular has spent a lot of money on lobbying to ensure they can continue leeching off of society [2]. - an absurd amount of food (depending on estimation, 30-50%!) goes to waste due to spoilage, because it doesn't meet quality standards (the running joke in the European Union was a directive that limited cucumbers from being too curved [3]) or because it is discarded in restaurants due to oversized portions - some countries commit crimes against nature, e.g. Brazil burning off the Amazon forest to feed cows that end up in the US and EU, and governments allow this atrocity instead of banning meat imports from there - agricultural land is abused for drug production (cocaine in South America, poppy in Afghanistan) because drugs are worth so much more money to cartels than farming to feed the population could ever be - Africa in particular has lost a lot of its agricultural power due to political mismanagement and toxic donations from Europe and the US (it's hard for local farmers and textile producers to compete against virtually free handouts) - European and US agriculture subsidies have completely warped into a monstrosity that favors large ultra-farms over small operators [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/29/the-fight-over-water-how-nestle-dries-up-us-creeks-to-sell-water-in-plastic-bottles https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/29/the-figh... [3] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verordnung_(EWG)_Nr._1677/88_(Gurkenverordnung) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verordnung_(EWG)_Nr._1677/88_(...
- sc68cal 4y ago
  love to see HN brain in full effect, where someone gives the correct analysis, but because it runs against the HN libertarian groupthink, it gets downvoted
giraffe_lady 4y ago
Because the population isn't the problem allocation of resources is. It's definitely "interesting" that someone always reaches for what will inevitably become eugenics before considering reallocation.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
The US population would be shrinking if it wasn't for immigration. Basically the only place in the world that the population is growing is Africa. I don't really think we can blame Africans for the water problems in California.

showerst 4y ago

We have enough clean water, (potential) power, food, and space to keep many times the earth's current population healthy and happy. The issue is that those things are not distributed in the same amounts and places as people. While unimaginably difficult, this is a substantially easier problem to solve than choosing some people who can't reproduce.

jdkee 4y ago
Nature may ultimately solve that for us.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bumby 4y ago

>limiting human population The choice of reproduction is generally considered a human right. The U.N. has adopted the following verbiage within their humans rights: >"couples have a basic human right to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children"[1] Unless, of course, you are simply saying people should choose at the individual level to limit their children. [1] https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/theme/rights/index.asp https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/theme/righ...

toomuchtodo 4y ago
There are 121 million unintended pregnancies per year per the UN. Maybe help those folks not have kids they don’t want? People themselves want to limit their fertility and simply don’t have robust options or socioeconomic support to do so. > Nearly half of all pregnancies, totalling 121 million each year worldwide, are unintended, according to a new report published on Wednesday by the UN’s sexual and reproductive health agency, UNFPA. > For example, an estimated 257 million women around the world who want to avoid pregnancy are not using safe, modern methods of contraception. https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1115062 https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1115062

s_dev 4y ago

The elephant in the room is that limiting population means limiting freedom and curtailing human rights. However I also think it's an acceptable trade off but not one to be made lightly. We do have declining populations in Northern Europe but honestly I'm not sure how much of the world can really emulate the likes of Norway.

elliekelly 4y ago
If only there were a large group of people, say half the population, maybe, who were actively begging for their governments to stop infringing their rights and allow them to choose when and whether they have children. Then we could limit population without limiting peoples' freedom and curtailing human rights. If only...

mschuster91 4y ago

Because as long as we have capitalism it will be the poor and minorities that will be restricted from reproduction. The US had had its fair share of eugenics in its history [1], and the Nazis have shown the worst examples by far. Besides, it is not even necessary to delve into the questionable ethics and side effects of eugenics, forced sterilizations, one-child policies and similar ideas that have been tried and proven catastrophic when the Earth has way more than enough resources to feed all the humans on it, even in Africa. The problem is that we manage the resources we have completely wrong: - the US has utterly absurd and wasteful grandfathered water and other natural resource rights, and obviously companies exploit them simply because they can and because Nestle in particular has spent a lot of money on lobbying to ensure they can continue leeching off of society [2]. - an absurd amount of food (depending on estimation, 30-50%!) goes to waste due to spoilage, because it doesn't meet quality standards (the running joke in the European Union was a directive that limited cucumbers from being too curved [3]) or because it is discarded in restaurants due to oversized portions - some countries commit crimes against nature, e.g. Brazil burning off the Amazon forest to feed cows that end up in the US and EU, and governments allow this atrocity instead of banning meat imports from there - agricultural land is abused for drug production (cocaine in South America, poppy in Afghanistan) because drugs are worth so much more money to cartels than farming to feed the population could ever be - Africa in particular has lost a lot of its agricultural power due to political mismanagement and toxic donations from Europe and the US (it's hard for local farmers and textile producers to compete against virtually free handouts) - European and US agriculture subsidies have completely warped into a monstrosity that favors large ultra-farms over small operators [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/29/the-fight-over-water-how-nestle-dries-up-us-creeks-to-sell-water-in-plastic-bottles https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/29/the-figh... [3] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verordnung_(EWG)_Nr._1677/88_(Gurkenverordnung) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verordnung_(EWG)_Nr._1677/88_(...

sc68cal 4y ago
love to see HN brain in full effect, where someone gives the correct analysis, but because it runs against the HN libertarian groupthink, it gets downvoted

giraffe_lady 4y ago

Because the population isn't the problem allocation of resources is. It's definitely "interesting" that someone always reaches for what will inevitably become eugenics before considering reallocation.

bryanlarsen 4y ago

The US population would be shrinking if it wasn't for immigration. Basically the only place in the world that the population is growing is Africa. I don't really think we can blame Africans for the water problems in California.