5 ms·

Something not discussed is the why. Why would we want more or less people. The less people, the less pollution. The more people, the more ???. One way we have

Something not discussed is the why. Why would we want more or less people. The less people, the less pollution. The more people, the more ???. One way we have been able to have this many people, are modern farm practices. But those rely heavily on chemicals. Which is not ideal(dead ecosystems, poisoned water). Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

zmgsabst 4y ago
The more people, the more people. I view human life as an inherently good thing to have more of — and certainly a higher priority than nebulous problems like “pollution”. You also didn’t give any reason why we should care about “pollution” more than human life. Human life is beautiful and good.
- Insanity 4y ago
  Why do you think human life is beautiful and good? And is it more so than life of other species?
  - adamisom 4y ago
    I think you should answer your own questions - with the comment that if you don't think human life is instrinsically good, I'm really curious what the foundation of your ethics is, and if you think anything at all has value.
    - kzrdude 4y ago
      I think using human life as good is a good foundation for ethics. It doesn't follow that we need more humans from that alone.
      - adamisom 4y ago
        Good point. To me it follows because the aggregation intuition seems right to me--human life good, more human lives more good--and to me things like 'the repugnant conclusion' mean only that more nuanced thinking in how you aggregate is required, but not that aggregation itself is inherently wrong. I think our likely-common intuition that it's more tragic for an 8-year-old to die than an 80-year-old indicates that it's really hard to just deny that utilitarian aggregation is appropriate and required in ethics. I suppose it's possible to say "it's more tragic for the 8 year old to die only because of the social expectation that they don't, and thus the impact on their parents and society", but I just don't buy it; I think we all have the intuition it's more tragic for the child to die primarily because they're missing out on more of life than the elderly person.
        kzrdude 4y ago
        I'll put myself at risk here and suggest that it's more tragic for the child to die because we feel empathy for the parents, who cannot bear to lose their child, or empathy in the sense of transferring the feeling to imagining our own children, if we have them, in the place of the dead child. This is partly tied to social expectation about how close family feels about their children vs their parents.
- psyc 4y ago
  Would you mind my asking what decade you were born in? I'm just curious. Article is light on criteria. My criteria is misanthropy, personally.
- paskozdilar 4y ago
  > You also didn’t give any reason why we should care about “pollution” more than human life. The only reason anyone cares about pollution is because it endangers human life. > Human life is beautiful and good. I'm sure it is, if you only focus on the pleasantries.
  - dhzhzjsbevs 4y ago
    > The only reason anyone cares about pollution is because it endangers human life. This is simply not true. There are many people who view humans like a plague or a cancer. That matrix line didn't come from nowhere. These people don't stop to think their feelings through to a conclusion. They don't even realise it but when you view humanity that way you're essentially advocating for genocide. > I'm sure it is, if you only focus on the pleasantries. You can see beauty in all forms of life. It doesn't have to be a pleasantry. Part of what gives humananity its beauty is its complexity and contradictions. All that yin and yang stuff. You don't have the good without the bad.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      You don't really have any argument for humanity beyond "I think it's pretty". Admittedly, neither do those who view humanity as a plague. But then again, I'd tell the same to them too. Of course, you're entitled to your opinions and preferences, but it seems to me as if you're trying to represent your opinion (that human life is beautiful and should be preserved) as some kind of objective truth - going so far to claim that the opposite side is advocating for genocide. The anti-natalist movement also considers humans a plague, but doesn't advocate killing of any kind - only voluntary abstinence from procreation. Does that count as "genocide" in your book? Personally, I don't consider humanity beautiful in itself, I've seen many kinds of evil that humans are capable of doing, and how much of it just passes with impunity. I think that every human being is inherently self-serving and will do everything within their power to assert their own will, and that it's only the fear of punishment that keeps them "good" and in check. If you were to magically remove all punishments from society, humans would start doing all kinds of horrible things, just because they can. Any and all kinds of "altruism" are either indirect self-benefit (e.g. helping friends in need makes it more likely they will help you when in need) or some kind of mental imprint from the past (e.g. being punished in childhood for selfishness can make humans become overly altruistic in order to avoid the inner critical voice). So when you say "humanity is beautiful and should be preserved", all you actually say is "I feel good when I think about humans, therefore they should be around". That is pure self-interest.
- alophawen 4y ago
  The planet is literally littered by people. They are starving and out of homes.
  - BEEdwards 4y ago
    We can't take care of all the people we have now and they want to add more and more forever...
- monkeywork 4y ago
  To what end? When a population gets to a size where continued growth actively hurts or lowers quality of life shouldn't that be considered. If you had an arc ship sending ppl to hopefully a new planet. That ship has limited space and resources, at what point do you stop expanding the population of the crew and passengers?
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    No — I don’t think we’re anywhere near that and I think we lack the judgment to accurately assess. I think we’ve heard the same end-of-humanity-death-cultism throughout history, and each time, continued growth led to a better humanity.
- thirdmunky 4y ago
  This is a reductionist take on a complicated question. More environmental damage may mean fewer people in the future. Is more people now worth fewer people or a lower quality of life later? Also, consider non-humans: how many additional people would make destroying the Great Barrier Reef worth it? If clearcutting the Amazon rainforest would increase the population cap by N, for what values of N would you do it? H̶u̶m̶a̶n̶ life is beautiful and good.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    Those aren’t necessarily contradictory goals. Nor did I imply it was easy to balance costs. I was pointing out that more people is a goal in and of itself.
  - adamisom 4y ago
    Life may be beautiful and good, but I'm sure if we probed our respective ethical intuitions--even after subjecting them to reflection--we'd agree that an ant's life isn't as worthy of ethical consideration as a dog's, or a human's. In short, I believe life's value must be correlated with sentience or consciousness, and I also believe that everyone who is honestly venturing forth what they believe (rather than doubting someone else) also believes the same, and I'd love to see a counterexample of someone truly believing differently. >how many additional people would make destroying the Great Barrier Reef worth it? If clearcutting the Amazon rainforest would increase the population cap by N, for what values of N would you do it? Just want to say, I think we are all in just as much of a position to have to answer questions such as these as the parent commenter. We can't get away from tricky ethical questions simply because they're difficult. We can even recognize that something's going wrong if we think we need to answer such stark utilitarian tradeoffs, but that's _still_ not a complete answer. Tricky questions like yours are inherent in the _world_, and it just so happens that the default "answer" to such questions is simply to cover one's eyes and pretend they don't exist.
- bjkkkjduid 4y ago
- BeFlatXIII 4y ago
  Pollution reduces the quality of existing human life.
- ako 4y ago
  Pollution may destroy the ability for human life to exist, and you may end up with significant less human life if you keep adding more. Earth is like a boat, it’s great for a few passengers, but at some point you have too many and it sinks. And then you have zero passengers enjoying the boat.
- kzrdude 4y ago
  Every species of organisms has potential for exponential growth - fill their niche. No organism has potential to grow without bound on just one planet, so there is a maximum number of individuals possible in the ecosystem. How many exactly depend on the environment and the other organisms in the ecosystem. Human life is beautiful. Dolphin and butterfly life are beautiful. They are not in exactly in competition, but they have something in common which is that we can't grow their population size without bound.
OJFord 4y ago
I think it depends on the country - substitute society, area, whatever as you prefer, an organisational unit - some would be advanced by more people; others would likely have an easier time advancing with fewer. I think this is one root of colonialism: more people and land with which to expand our already developed ideas, processes, et al. - and also perhaps (though often/typically problematically, controversially, etc.) benefit them in doing so, bring our developed ideas, processes, et al. to them, saving them the development, a jump forward for them. The most obvious example I can think of for this (the general idea, not colonialism) in the modern world is Canada: lots of land, well developed, few people; promoting net immigration. (The UK has roughly double the population while Canada has about 40x the land area. I don't see many ads but something I've occasionally seen all my life is 'move to Canada' - like the colonial example they're helping us too, eh?)
- monkeywork 4y ago
  In Canada however that positive net migration (I believe second highest in western world) and high immigrant percentage of population (forth highest I believe) comes at a massive cost when you realize Canada has not been matching population growth to housing and infrastructure. Prior to pandemic we were building fewer than 0.4 new houses per person nationwide (down from 0.7 back in 2010), our healthcare system is very stressed with lowered population provinces (example Maritimes) having massive waits to get family doctors causing ppl to use ER for simple things adding major stress and delays there. Most of the talk about Canada's RE market gets pushed to secondary causes or really reactions and symptoms of the core issues. Foriegn money, private investment, greedy landlords etc are all results of a basic supply and demand problem that the government could fix via zoning reform and immigration reform but seem to deflect away from instead giving ppl boogiemen to hate on instead. Net migration into Canada is great and we benefit greatly by those who choose to come here however if it's not balanced by the government spending to support it Canada is heading for disaster in the next decade.
  - OJFord 4y ago
    Absolutely, I didn't mean to suggest that everything is being done right for that plan, just that it is 'a plan', a deliberate action for the benefit of the nation, not just an arbitrary choice some countries (or parties) like immigration and others don't. Aside from housing, it's healthcare that really surprises me - I've seen second-hand (I'm not a doctor) the lengths citizens have to go to, and how competitive it is, to get a residency spot at home; even more so apparently if they studied abroad (even if somewhere similar, e.g. US/UK/EU).
IdiocyInAction 4y ago
It's not just less pollution though. It's less people that might fulfill valuable societal roles that scale with the number of people and in many developed countries less people to look after/produce value for those in old age, which will lead to all sorts of unpleasantness. Also, non-modern farm practices are also not ideal and I think if we were forced to switch to traditional agriculture we would still have a large adverse effect on ecosystems.
kken 4y ago
>The more people, the more scaling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects#Wright's_law_unit_cost_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects#Wrigh... This is what brought us scientific and engineering progress. The problem is, of course, that growing inequality stalls these mechanisms.
- __alexs 4y ago
  This is what bought us the rate of progress we've become accustomed too. Why should we want it to be faster?
  - MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
    Because we're going to to have to science and engineer our way out of the climate change hole that's been dug.
    - __alexs 4y ago
      We already have the technology to do that. We just don't have the political will to do it.
  - skeeter2020 4y ago
    Oh the hubris, to think that it has anything to do with what the individual wants! Humans are unique in their belief that we master the universe and conform everything to our desires.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  The last 500 years's scientific progress is much less impressive when you adjust for the number of people it took to make all that progress.
somenameforme 4y ago
Culture, art, technology, science, growth, exploration, communication, and so on. Basically advancement in nearly every measurable way of every aspect of society. Food is not a limiting factor. China is a net exporter of food in a country of 1.4 billion on about 1.1 million km^2 of arable land. For context, the United States has about 1.6 million km^2. And the quantities of arable land can be expanded somewhat dramatically everywhere.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- croes 4y ago
  >Culture, art, technology, science, growth, exploration, communication, and so on. Basically advancement in nearly every measurable way of every aspect of society I doubt that these depend on quantity and not quality.
  - theplumber 4y ago
    So you have a plan to reduce the quantity and increase the quality? Right now it seems that education leads to lower birth rates and slows population growth so it goes the opposite direction someone would want.
    - croes 4y ago
      Is it education or the time and money that is needed to get this education? Not to mention that a costly education runs the risk of becoming useless after parental leave, especially for women. Nowadays many people have to decide between family and career
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - chitowneats 4y ago
    I much prefer to date a single woman of high quality than to have a bunch of flings and one night stands. Finding that woman is still a numbers game though. Same is true for the Einsteins and Jordans of the world being born.
haunter 4y ago
>The more people, the more ??? Wealth for the 1%. The rulers need a group of wage slaves who will serve the foundation of capitalism. The whole system is designed so average workers can never get ahead but can be exploited.
oneoff786 4y ago
There’s no particular reason to think pollution is a function of population size. It’s far more dependent on societal factors like industry and energy usage and freight and what not.
throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
Because it's easier to make GDP go up when you have an increasing population.
wooque 4y ago
The more people, the more people. Human experience is beautiful. If you don't think so, don't have children and end your life prematurely. If you are still here, means you are hypocrite that enjoys human experience but don't want others to do so.
- carapace 4y ago
  Overcrowded conditions are not conducive to the good life. E.g. Life in Kowloon Walled City wasn't beautiful
  - wooque 4y ago
    There are plenty of space on the Earth, you don't need to live in New York or London.
    - carapace 4y ago
      > There are plenty of space on the Earth For now... What we're finding out as we study living systems (remember that ecology is a science) is that many of the subsystems involved spans quite large areas, e.g the Monarch Butterfly migrations, or the effects of ocean currents on climate. The point is that unrestricted growth just isn't possible, so somewhere between Yukon and Kowloon there's a "sweet spot".
- ramblerman 4y ago
  The more water the more water. If you don’t think so just drown yourself. I enjoy going for a swim, it doesn’t mean I want there to be no more land. Why would you simplify such a tricky topic to a binary decision

zmgsabst 4y ago

The more people, the more people. I view human life as an inherently good thing to have more of — and certainly a higher priority than nebulous problems like “pollution”. You also didn’t give any reason why we should care about “pollution” more than human life. Human life is beautiful and good.

Insanity 4y ago
Why do you think human life is beautiful and good? And is it more so than life of other species?
- adamisom 4y ago
  I think you should answer your own questions - with the comment that if you don't think human life is instrinsically good, I'm really curious what the foundation of your ethics is, and if you think anything at all has value.
  - kzrdude 4y ago
    I think using human life as good is a good foundation for ethics. It doesn't follow that we need more humans from that alone.
    - adamisom 4y ago
      Good point. To me it follows because the aggregation intuition seems right to me--human life good, more human lives more good--and to me things like 'the repugnant conclusion' mean only that more nuanced thinking in how you aggregate is required, but not that aggregation itself is inherently wrong. I think our likely-common intuition that it's more tragic for an 8-year-old to die than an 80-year-old indicates that it's really hard to just deny that utilitarian aggregation is appropriate and required in ethics. I suppose it's possible to say "it's more tragic for the 8 year old to die only because of the social expectation that they don't, and thus the impact on their parents and society", but I just don't buy it; I think we all have the intuition it's more tragic for the child to die primarily because they're missing out on more of life than the elderly person.
      - kzrdude 4y ago
        I'll put myself at risk here and suggest that it's more tragic for the child to die because we feel empathy for the parents, who cannot bear to lose their child, or empathy in the sense of transferring the feeling to imagining our own children, if we have them, in the place of the dead child. This is partly tied to social expectation about how close family feels about their children vs their parents.
psyc 4y ago
Would you mind my asking what decade you were born in? I'm just curious. Article is light on criteria. My criteria is misanthropy, personally.
paskozdilar 4y ago
> You also didn’t give any reason why we should care about “pollution” more than human life. The only reason anyone cares about pollution is because it endangers human life. > Human life is beautiful and good. I'm sure it is, if you only focus on the pleasantries.
- dhzhzjsbevs 4y ago
  > The only reason anyone cares about pollution is because it endangers human life. This is simply not true. There are many people who view humans like a plague or a cancer. That matrix line didn't come from nowhere. These people don't stop to think their feelings through to a conclusion. They don't even realise it but when you view humanity that way you're essentially advocating for genocide. > I'm sure it is, if you only focus on the pleasantries. You can see beauty in all forms of life. It doesn't have to be a pleasantry. Part of what gives humananity its beauty is its complexity and contradictions. All that yin and yang stuff. You don't have the good without the bad.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    You don't really have any argument for humanity beyond "I think it's pretty". Admittedly, neither do those who view humanity as a plague. But then again, I'd tell the same to them too. Of course, you're entitled to your opinions and preferences, but it seems to me as if you're trying to represent your opinion (that human life is beautiful and should be preserved) as some kind of objective truth - going so far to claim that the opposite side is advocating for genocide. The anti-natalist movement also considers humans a plague, but doesn't advocate killing of any kind - only voluntary abstinence from procreation. Does that count as "genocide" in your book? Personally, I don't consider humanity beautiful in itself, I've seen many kinds of evil that humans are capable of doing, and how much of it just passes with impunity. I think that every human being is inherently self-serving and will do everything within their power to assert their own will, and that it's only the fear of punishment that keeps them "good" and in check. If you were to magically remove all punishments from society, humans would start doing all kinds of horrible things, just because they can. Any and all kinds of "altruism" are either indirect self-benefit (e.g. helping friends in need makes it more likely they will help you when in need) or some kind of mental imprint from the past (e.g. being punished in childhood for selfishness can make humans become overly altruistic in order to avoid the inner critical voice). So when you say "humanity is beautiful and should be preserved", all you actually say is "I feel good when I think about humans, therefore they should be around". That is pure self-interest.
alophawen 4y ago
The planet is literally littered by people. They are starving and out of homes.
- BEEdwards 4y ago
  We can't take care of all the people we have now and they want to add more and more forever...
monkeywork 4y ago
To what end? When a population gets to a size where continued growth actively hurts or lowers quality of life shouldn't that be considered. If you had an arc ship sending ppl to hopefully a new planet. That ship has limited space and resources, at what point do you stop expanding the population of the crew and passengers?
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  No — I don’t think we’re anywhere near that and I think we lack the judgment to accurately assess. I think we’ve heard the same end-of-humanity-death-cultism throughout history, and each time, continued growth led to a better humanity.
thirdmunky 4y ago
This is a reductionist take on a complicated question. More environmental damage may mean fewer people in the future. Is more people now worth fewer people or a lower quality of life later? Also, consider non-humans: how many additional people would make destroying the Great Barrier Reef worth it? If clearcutting the Amazon rainforest would increase the population cap by N, for what values of N would you do it? H̶u̶m̶a̶n̶ life is beautiful and good.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  Those aren’t necessarily contradictory goals. Nor did I imply it was easy to balance costs. I was pointing out that more people is a goal in and of itself.
- adamisom 4y ago
  Life may be beautiful and good, but I'm sure if we probed our respective ethical intuitions--even after subjecting them to reflection--we'd agree that an ant's life isn't as worthy of ethical consideration as a dog's, or a human's. In short, I believe life's value must be correlated with sentience or consciousness, and I also believe that everyone who is honestly venturing forth what they believe (rather than doubting someone else) also believes the same, and I'd love to see a counterexample of someone truly believing differently. >how many additional people would make destroying the Great Barrier Reef worth it? If clearcutting the Amazon rainforest would increase the population cap by N, for what values of N would you do it? Just want to say, I think we are all in just as much of a position to have to answer questions such as these as the parent commenter. We can't get away from tricky ethical questions simply because they're difficult. We can even recognize that something's going wrong if we think we need to answer such stark utilitarian tradeoffs, but that's _still_ not a complete answer. Tricky questions like yours are inherent in the _world_, and it just so happens that the default "answer" to such questions is simply to cover one's eyes and pretend they don't exist.
bjkkkjduid 4y ago
BeFlatXIII 4y ago
Pollution reduces the quality of existing human life.
ako 4y ago
Pollution may destroy the ability for human life to exist, and you may end up with significant less human life if you keep adding more. Earth is like a boat, it’s great for a few passengers, but at some point you have too many and it sinks. And then you have zero passengers enjoying the boat.
kzrdude 4y ago
Every species of organisms has potential for exponential growth - fill their niche. No organism has potential to grow without bound on just one planet, so there is a maximum number of individuals possible in the ecosystem. How many exactly depend on the environment and the other organisms in the ecosystem. Human life is beautiful. Dolphin and butterfly life are beautiful. They are not in exactly in competition, but they have something in common which is that we can't grow their population size without bound.

OJFord 4y ago

I think it depends on the country - substitute society, area, whatever as you prefer, an organisational unit - some would be advanced by more people; others would likely have an easier time advancing with fewer. I think this is one root of colonialism: more people and land with which to expand our already developed ideas, processes, et al. - and also perhaps (though often/typically problematically, controversially, etc.) benefit them in doing so, bring our developed ideas, processes, et al. to them, saving them the development, a jump forward for them. The most obvious example I can think of for this (the general idea, not colonialism) in the modern world is Canada: lots of land, well developed, few people; promoting net immigration. (The UK has roughly double the population while Canada has about 40x the land area. I don't see many ads but something I've occasionally seen all my life is 'move to Canada' - like the colonial example they're helping us too, eh?)

monkeywork 4y ago
In Canada however that positive net migration (I believe second highest in western world) and high immigrant percentage of population (forth highest I believe) comes at a massive cost when you realize Canada has not been matching population growth to housing and infrastructure. Prior to pandemic we were building fewer than 0.4 new houses per person nationwide (down from 0.7 back in 2010), our healthcare system is very stressed with lowered population provinces (example Maritimes) having massive waits to get family doctors causing ppl to use ER for simple things adding major stress and delays there. Most of the talk about Canada's RE market gets pushed to secondary causes or really reactions and symptoms of the core issues. Foriegn money, private investment, greedy landlords etc are all results of a basic supply and demand problem that the government could fix via zoning reform and immigration reform but seem to deflect away from instead giving ppl boogiemen to hate on instead. Net migration into Canada is great and we benefit greatly by those who choose to come here however if it's not balanced by the government spending to support it Canada is heading for disaster in the next decade.
- OJFord 4y ago
  Absolutely, I didn't mean to suggest that everything is being done right for that plan, just that it is 'a plan', a deliberate action for the benefit of the nation, not just an arbitrary choice some countries (or parties) like immigration and others don't. Aside from housing, it's healthcare that really surprises me - I've seen second-hand (I'm not a doctor) the lengths citizens have to go to, and how competitive it is, to get a residency spot at home; even more so apparently if they studied abroad (even if somewhere similar, e.g. US/UK/EU).

IdiocyInAction 4y ago

It's not just less pollution though. It's less people that might fulfill valuable societal roles that scale with the number of people and in many developed countries less people to look after/produce value for those in old age, which will lead to all sorts of unpleasantness. Also, non-modern farm practices are also not ideal and I think if we were forced to switch to traditional agriculture we would still have a large adverse effect on ecosystems.

kken 4y ago

>The more people, the more scaling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects#Wright's_law_unit_cost_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects#Wrigh... This is what brought us scientific and engineering progress. The problem is, of course, that growing inequality stalls these mechanisms.

__alexs 4y ago
This is what bought us the rate of progress we've become accustomed too. Why should we want it to be faster?
- MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
  Because we're going to to have to science and engineer our way out of the climate change hole that's been dug.
  - __alexs 4y ago
    We already have the technology to do that. We just don't have the political will to do it.
- skeeter2020 4y ago
  Oh the hubris, to think that it has anything to do with what the individual wants! Humans are unique in their belief that we master the universe and conform everything to our desires.
daniel-cussen 4y ago
The last 500 years's scientific progress is much less impressive when you adjust for the number of people it took to make all that progress.

somenameforme 4y ago

Culture, art, technology, science, growth, exploration, communication, and so on. Basically advancement in nearly every measurable way of every aspect of society. Food is not a limiting factor. China is a net exporter of food in a country of 1.4 billion on about 1.1 million km^2 of arable land. For context, the United States has about 1.6 million km^2. And the quantities of arable land can be expanded somewhat dramatically everywhere.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
croes 4y ago
>Culture, art, technology, science, growth, exploration, communication, and so on. Basically advancement in nearly every measurable way of every aspect of society I doubt that these depend on quantity and not quality.
- theplumber 4y ago
  So you have a plan to reduce the quantity and increase the quality? Right now it seems that education leads to lower birth rates and slows population growth so it goes the opposite direction someone would want.
  - croes 4y ago
    Is it education or the time and money that is needed to get this education? Not to mention that a costly education runs the risk of becoming useless after parental leave, especially for women. Nowadays many people have to decide between family and career
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- chitowneats 4y ago
  I much prefer to date a single woman of high quality than to have a bunch of flings and one night stands. Finding that woman is still a numbers game though. Same is true for the Einsteins and Jordans of the world being born.

haunter 4y ago

>The more people, the more ??? Wealth for the 1%. The rulers need a group of wage slaves who will serve the foundation of capitalism. The whole system is designed so average workers can never get ahead but can be exploited.

oneoff786 4y ago

There’s no particular reason to think pollution is a function of population size. It’s far more dependent on societal factors like industry and energy usage and freight and what not.

throw_nbvc1234 4y ago

Because it's easier to make GDP go up when you have an increasing population.

wooque 4y ago

The more people, the more people. Human experience is beautiful. If you don't think so, don't have children and end your life prematurely. If you are still here, means you are hypocrite that enjoys human experience but don't want others to do so.

carapace 4y ago
Overcrowded conditions are not conducive to the good life. E.g. Life in Kowloon Walled City wasn't beautiful
- wooque 4y ago
  There are plenty of space on the Earth, you don't need to live in New York or London.
  - carapace 4y ago
    > There are plenty of space on the Earth For now... What we're finding out as we study living systems (remember that ecology is a science) is that many of the subsystems involved spans quite large areas, e.g the Monarch Butterfly migrations, or the effects of ocean currents on climate. The point is that unrestricted growth just isn't possible, so somewhere between Yukon and Kowloon there's a "sweet spot".
ramblerman 4y ago
The more water the more water. If you don’t think so just drown yourself. I enjoy going for a swim, it doesn’t mean I want there to be no more land. Why would you simplify such a tricky topic to a binary decision