5 ms·

Happy to see the world population growing. Unlike many here I don't believe the world is overpopulated and that we need more people to grow and expand beyond th

by xcom86 4y ago

Happy to see the world population growing. Unlike many here I don't believe the world is overpopulated and that we need more people to grow and expand beyond the planet. Located in the U.S. where we could double the population without starting to feel cramped. We can and we should.

CogitoCogito 4y ago
Personally I'd be okay with the population being 10% its current value (though I don't see any non-apocalyptic way of that coming to be). In any case, I think we should decrease our population to whatever extent possible. But I guess that's just my opinion. edit: I'm not really sure why you're being down-voted. You're just expressing your opinion here.
- Glavnokoman 4y ago
  yeah... and it would be great if decrease in quantity would come with increase of quality. People themselves, their life conditions, human life appreciation all that stuff you know. (Cause I do not understand why would somebody want 2x of fat dolts).
PestoDiRucola 4y ago
Physical space is not the only issue. Your average US adult consumes more than 100 times than an adult from a developing country. Doubling that number would have disastrous consequences for the planet.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
The US produce 14% of global emissions and consume a disproportionate amount of resources in general. As things stand, doubling of US population would be a global disaster.
rowanseymour 4y ago
I'm sure the US could feed all those people but can the planet survive doubling US greenhouse gas emissions?
- sascha_sl 4y ago
  Feeding is going to be a lot harder as more land is eroded. Though the US could cut emissions in the neighborhood of entire developed countries in Europe right now if they just stopped military spending.
- kolinko 4y ago
  The planet and nature would survive just fine - it’s just that people wouldn’t.
nivenkos 4y ago
Because you live in the wealthiest country in the world (over 100 continuous years of highest GDP) with high salaries and lots of habitable space (from exterminating the native populace). But that's not sustainable - the US has the highest CO2 emissions per capita when you factor in imports, etc. nevermind other environmental damage. And is also dependent on terrible conditions in Asia, etc. to produce all the cheap goods and clothes that you enjoy. It's like the prisoner's dilemma though - the first countries that try to act responsibly with environmental policies, transitioning from fossil fuels, reducing population growth and unnecessary consumption are just at a disadvantage to those that don't.
- jimbob45 4y ago
  We’re on track for electric cars to overtake gas cars in twenty years. Nuclear power is making a comeback. Even electric planes are in the wings. Best of all, lab-grown meat is here now and we’re just waiting for the price to come down. It seems as though we’ll have solved our emissions issues by the next generation. Would you still argue against a higher population once we largely solve the emissions issues? Or is there a more fundamental reason you’re against a higher population?
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    We consume many resources and we won't consume less of them just because cars become electric. Emissions are just one of many pressures we out on the environment. I think it's better to ask why should population keep growing? We don't need it and it physically has to stop growing at some point. It seems much better to focus on growing quality of life and quality of environment rather than growing number of people.
    - jimbob45 4y ago
      I think it's better to ask why should population keep growing? We don't need it and it physically has to stop growing at some point. Because you can’t stop people from breeding apart from killing them, at which point you’ve become Hitler. That or tax and social disincentivization at which point you’ve become the Illuminati. That or a procreation suppression field at which point you’re the Combine.
oezi 4y ago
Luckily growth mostly slowed and we are just seeing the effect of longer lifes. Talk by Hans Rosling worth watching: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_growth_box_by_box https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_gro...
- psandersen 4y ago
  Sorry for the off topic reply, but I saw your post "Ask HN: Variable naming guide of matching length?" when looking for the same thing and couldn't find a way to contact you on your profile; is this what you were looking for? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26359214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26359214
  - oezi 4y ago
    Thank you! That was very observant of you and exactely the thing I was looking for.
sascha_sl 4y ago
It is, under current conditions, unsustainable. The root cause of this is not "overpopulation" as often proclaimed, but our mode of production, which assumes endless economic growth is possible and everyone can be lifted out of poverty - all while relying on those in poverty to generate wealth (and more wealth inequality). Steven Pinker can shift the poverty line all he wants, it doesn't make the world less unequal. I really dislike degrowth arguments, but it needs to be acknowledged that the standard of living for the top few percent is simply impossible to scale. At least with the means we currently have, and I'd rather measure based on those than hypothetical future developments that may or may not come to be.
o_m 4y ago
Space isn't the bottle neck. Clean water might be the limiting factor.
- kolinko 4y ago
  Clean water is an issue of energy and resources to build cleanup or desalination plants.
neuromute 4y ago
Overpopulation isn’t really about running out of space or feeling cramped, it’s about not having enough resources to sustainably support the population.
- k__ 4y ago
  I think, overpopulation is a eco-facist narrative. Persons are autonomous, and if we would educate them correctly, they could help to make more of earth hospitable and use resources more efficientlly.
  - tjpnz 4y ago
    Who's we? As a westerner I'd feel like quite the hypocrite schooling the rest of the world on how to efficiently utilise resources.
  - alex_young 4y ago
    Eco-fascist is an odd term. Fascism is generally used to describe right wing dictatorships with hierarchical structures which are opposed to democratic principles. Do you really believe any of the people advocating for population stability are fascists?
car_analogy 4y ago
> Located in the U.S. where we could double the population without starting to feel cramped. You're already running out of resources: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-11/californians-urged-to-conserve-water-after-dry-winter https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-11/californ...
- radicalbyte 4y ago
  In that case the population is dominated by the suicidally bad water management in CA. You could cut the population by 99% and you would still have a looming water crisis there. If you build a solar energy farm on the dark side of the moon you shouldn't be blaming the people who want to use the energy, you should be blaming the people who managed the project.
  - zeristor 4y ago
    I assume you mean the far side of the Moon. A solar panel on the dark side wont be much use. But then people have discussed landing on the Sun at night.
  - kolinko 4y ago
    offtopic - it’s not dark side if moon but far side of moon. Both sides get the same amount of sunlight - 2 weeks of sun and 2 weeks of darkness.
thomassmith65 4y ago
People are like Replicants: we're "either a benefit or a hazard". If the population increases in a system where there is enough access to good education, and enough economic opportunity, to advance humanity's knowledge, we will be fine. If the population increases in a system with too much ignorance and destitution, we are in trouble.
grapeskin 4y ago
We were all born into a very fortunate time in earth's history regarding natural disasters. The dust bowl absolutely destroyed a large part of the US. In prior centuries, massive droughts, volcanic explosions that blackened the skies, and massively deadly pandemics ravaged the world. These things happen periodically and absolutely destroy any population that's pushing the limits of its population totals. So far we've managed to sustain huge population numbers by pumping up ground water. That's drying up across the world. We've survived off fish. Those populations are collapsing. We've diverted rivers for agriculture in deserts. There isn't enough rain to keep those flowing and hasn't been for years, plus with climate change glaciers and mountain snow that fed into rivers are increasingly a thing of the past--rivers and lakes that exist today will cease to exist within our lifetime (and long before we expect). Fertilizer let us push the land well beyond sustainable limits and vegetables are less nutritious than they've ever been due to nutrients being wiped out of the soil. Most countries are dependent on food being shipped from hundreds if not thousands of miles away and often from other countries entirely. The world is severely overpopulated. We've just been lucky to have had a few decades of peaceful trade and a very, very, very mild environmental situation with zero major global disasters. This isn't the norm. One massive volcanic eruption, one actual plague, one massive drought and it's all over.
extheat 4y ago
You’re being downvoted, but for rather silly reasons. There are people who wrongly assume less people means higher quality of life for everyone else. There’s simply no empirical data to back such a claim up. The most concerning growth is unsustainable growth, exponential growth that cannot be sustained which causes immediate stress on the local economy. Likewise, there’s also economic stress when the opposite happens as economies are built under the guise of population growth, not just capitalism. What we see continually rather is a narrative of overpopulation pushed and advanced by seemingly related points about lack of food and water. In reality these are completely orthogonal points which have some correlation to, but are not directly proportional to population growth all.
tr33house 4y ago
I'm with you on this. The world can still house a lot more people and we should stop being worried about the current population. In terms of energy, nuclear. In terms of food, there are still large swaths of un-farmed areas. We can farm these and still maintain natural parks and not destroy the environment. Opening up immigration will solve labor issues. We have the technology, we just have to distribute it to easily quadruple the carrying capacity of the earth
shafyy 4y ago
It's not about the space and feeling cramped. A rich human's land and ecological footprint goes way beyond than "feeling cramped" walking around in a city. I'm not against population growth, but this whole rhetoric fueled by Musk, among others, stirring panic that the population will collapse is crazy. Sure, we would have a problem if people suddenly stopped having children. But this is not the case. World population is still growing, and it should stabilize at around 10B people. That's not too bad, why do we need to keep growing?
slavik81 4y ago
Human beings represent 3% of all animals on earth by weight. At this point, 90% of all birds and mammals on Earth are human-raised livestock [1]. There is room on this planet for more humans, but taking it for our own comes at a cost. If we choose to use it for people, then it can't also be wild. So, we have a choice to make about the kind of world we wish to live in. [1]: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/all-life-on-earth-chart-weight-plants-animals-pnas https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/al...

by xcom86 4y ago

CogitoCogito 4y ago

Personally I'd be okay with the population being 10% its current value (though I don't see any non-apocalyptic way of that coming to be). In any case, I think we should decrease our population to whatever extent possible. But I guess that's just my opinion. edit: I'm not really sure why you're being down-voted. You're just expressing your opinion here.

Glavnokoman 4y ago
yeah... and it would be great if decrease in quantity would come with increase of quality. People themselves, their life conditions, human life appreciation all that stuff you know. (Cause I do not understand why would somebody want 2x of fat dolts).

PestoDiRucola 4y ago

Physical space is not the only issue. Your average US adult consumes more than 100 times than an adult from a developing country. Doubling that number would have disastrous consequences for the planet.

mytailorisrich 4y ago

The US produce 14% of global emissions and consume a disproportionate amount of resources in general. As things stand, doubling of US population would be a global disaster.

rowanseymour 4y ago

I'm sure the US could feed all those people but can the planet survive doubling US greenhouse gas emissions?

sascha_sl 4y ago
Feeding is going to be a lot harder as more land is eroded. Though the US could cut emissions in the neighborhood of entire developed countries in Europe right now if they just stopped military spending.
kolinko 4y ago
The planet and nature would survive just fine - it’s just that people wouldn’t.

nivenkos 4y ago

Because you live in the wealthiest country in the world (over 100 continuous years of highest GDP) with high salaries and lots of habitable space (from exterminating the native populace). But that's not sustainable - the US has the highest CO2 emissions per capita when you factor in imports, etc. nevermind other environmental damage. And is also dependent on terrible conditions in Asia, etc. to produce all the cheap goods and clothes that you enjoy. It's like the prisoner's dilemma though - the first countries that try to act responsibly with environmental policies, transitioning from fossil fuels, reducing population growth and unnecessary consumption are just at a disadvantage to those that don't.

jimbob45 4y ago
We’re on track for electric cars to overtake gas cars in twenty years. Nuclear power is making a comeback. Even electric planes are in the wings. Best of all, lab-grown meat is here now and we’re just waiting for the price to come down. It seems as though we’ll have solved our emissions issues by the next generation. Would you still argue against a higher population once we largely solve the emissions issues? Or is there a more fundamental reason you’re against a higher population?
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  We consume many resources and we won't consume less of them just because cars become electric. Emissions are just one of many pressures we out on the environment. I think it's better to ask why should population keep growing? We don't need it and it physically has to stop growing at some point. It seems much better to focus on growing quality of life and quality of environment rather than growing number of people.
  - jimbob45 4y ago
    I think it's better to ask why should population keep growing? We don't need it and it physically has to stop growing at some point. Because you can’t stop people from breeding apart from killing them, at which point you’ve become Hitler. That or tax and social disincentivization at which point you’ve become the Illuminati. That or a procreation suppression field at which point you’re the Combine.

oezi 4y ago

Luckily growth mostly slowed and we are just seeing the effect of longer lifes. Talk by Hans Rosling worth watching: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_growth_box_by_box https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_gro...

psandersen 4y ago
Sorry for the off topic reply, but I saw your post "Ask HN: Variable naming guide of matching length?" when looking for the same thing and couldn't find a way to contact you on your profile; is this what you were looking for? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26359214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26359214
- oezi 4y ago
  Thank you! That was very observant of you and exactely the thing I was looking for.

sascha_sl 4y ago

It is, under current conditions, unsustainable. The root cause of this is not "overpopulation" as often proclaimed, but our mode of production, which assumes endless economic growth is possible and everyone can be lifted out of poverty - all while relying on those in poverty to generate wealth (and more wealth inequality). Steven Pinker can shift the poverty line all he wants, it doesn't make the world less unequal. I really dislike degrowth arguments, but it needs to be acknowledged that the standard of living for the top few percent is simply impossible to scale. At least with the means we currently have, and I'd rather measure based on those than hypothetical future developments that may or may not come to be.

o_m 4y ago

Space isn't the bottle neck. Clean water might be the limiting factor.

kolinko 4y ago
Clean water is an issue of energy and resources to build cleanup or desalination plants.

neuromute 4y ago

Overpopulation isn’t really about running out of space or feeling cramped, it’s about not having enough resources to sustainably support the population.

k__ 4y ago
I think, overpopulation is a eco-facist narrative. Persons are autonomous, and if we would educate them correctly, they could help to make more of earth hospitable and use resources more efficientlly.
- tjpnz 4y ago
  Who's we? As a westerner I'd feel like quite the hypocrite schooling the rest of the world on how to efficiently utilise resources.
- alex_young 4y ago
  Eco-fascist is an odd term. Fascism is generally used to describe right wing dictatorships with hierarchical structures which are opposed to democratic principles. Do you really believe any of the people advocating for population stability are fascists?

car_analogy 4y ago

> Located in the U.S. where we could double the population without starting to feel cramped. You're already running out of resources: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-11/californians-urged-to-conserve-water-after-dry-winter https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-11/californ...

radicalbyte 4y ago
In that case the population is dominated by the suicidally bad water management in CA. You could cut the population by 99% and you would still have a looming water crisis there. If you build a solar energy farm on the dark side of the moon you shouldn't be blaming the people who want to use the energy, you should be blaming the people who managed the project.
- zeristor 4y ago
  I assume you mean the far side of the Moon. A solar panel on the dark side wont be much use. But then people have discussed landing on the Sun at night.
- kolinko 4y ago
  offtopic - it’s not dark side if moon but far side of moon. Both sides get the same amount of sunlight - 2 weeks of sun and 2 weeks of darkness.

thomassmith65 4y ago

People are like Replicants: we're "either a benefit or a hazard". If the population increases in a system where there is enough access to good education, and enough economic opportunity, to advance humanity's knowledge, we will be fine. If the population increases in a system with too much ignorance and destitution, we are in trouble.

grapeskin 4y ago

We were all born into a very fortunate time in earth's history regarding natural disasters. The dust bowl absolutely destroyed a large part of the US. In prior centuries, massive droughts, volcanic explosions that blackened the skies, and massively deadly pandemics ravaged the world. These things happen periodically and absolutely destroy any population that's pushing the limits of its population totals. So far we've managed to sustain huge population numbers by pumping up ground water. That's drying up across the world. We've survived off fish. Those populations are collapsing. We've diverted rivers for agriculture in deserts. There isn't enough rain to keep those flowing and hasn't been for years, plus with climate change glaciers and mountain snow that fed into rivers are increasingly a thing of the past--rivers and lakes that exist today will cease to exist within our lifetime (and long before we expect). Fertilizer let us push the land well beyond sustainable limits and vegetables are less nutritious than they've ever been due to nutrients being wiped out of the soil. Most countries are dependent on food being shipped from hundreds if not thousands of miles away and often from other countries entirely. The world is severely overpopulated. We've just been lucky to have had a few decades of peaceful trade and a very, very, very mild environmental situation with zero major global disasters. This isn't the norm. One massive volcanic eruption, one actual plague, one massive drought and it's all over.

extheat 4y ago

You’re being downvoted, but for rather silly reasons. There are people who wrongly assume less people means higher quality of life for everyone else. There’s simply no empirical data to back such a claim up. The most concerning growth is unsustainable growth, exponential growth that cannot be sustained which causes immediate stress on the local economy. Likewise, there’s also economic stress when the opposite happens as economies are built under the guise of population growth, not just capitalism. What we see continually rather is a narrative of overpopulation pushed and advanced by seemingly related points about lack of food and water. In reality these are completely orthogonal points which have some correlation to, but are not directly proportional to population growth all.

tr33house 4y ago

I'm with you on this. The world can still house a lot more people and we should stop being worried about the current population. In terms of energy, nuclear. In terms of food, there are still large swaths of un-farmed areas. We can farm these and still maintain natural parks and not destroy the environment. Opening up immigration will solve labor issues. We have the technology, we just have to distribute it to easily quadruple the carrying capacity of the earth

shafyy 4y ago

It's not about the space and feeling cramped. A rich human's land and ecological footprint goes way beyond than "feeling cramped" walking around in a city. I'm not against population growth, but this whole rhetoric fueled by Musk, among others, stirring panic that the population will collapse is crazy. Sure, we would have a problem if people suddenly stopped having children. But this is not the case. World population is still growing, and it should stabilize at around 10B people. That's not too bad, why do we need to keep growing?

slavik81 4y ago

Human beings represent 3% of all animals on earth by weight. At this point, 90% of all birds and mammals on Earth are human-raised livestock [1]. There is room on this planet for more humans, but taking it for our own comes at a cost. If we choose to use it for people, then it can't also be wild. So, we have a choice to make about the kind of world we wish to live in. [1]: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/all-life-on-earth-chart-weight-plants-animals-pnas https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/al...