6 ms·

How many people does HN think should live on Earth?

fimdomeio 4y ago
A lot less. I think humanity overestimates it's ability not to destroy ecossystems to a point where it will make life awful also for most humans. Also I think we constantly underestimate how much was already destroyed.
RC_ITR 4y ago
As many as it can comfortably sustain? Which RN looks like a lot less than 8bn (given climate change and all). Open to your ideas of how we fix that though! I think a resource-light society of many billions would be amazing
- twelve40 4y ago
  > With less than 5% of the world's population, the U.S. consumes almost 17% of the world's energy > looks like a lot less than 8bn seems like looking at the single total population count for sustainability is ridiculously simplistic since some subsets of this total count consume a helluva lot more than others.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    You don't think that most of those 8bn people strive to live like Americans do? Or do you just think they won't get there?
    - twelve40 4y ago
      it's a great question. At the very least, if they do, they have a chance to avoid some mistakes of the past on the way up, like heavy coal usage, tons of unnecessary plastic, etc. But who knows, right? who knows how it all turns out for them.
      - RC_ITR 4y ago
        I mean I love your optimism, but there’s no way using current or even foreseeable technology for 8bn people to live the life they want to live. Coal is bad because the aerosols, but it’s not like natural gas is that much better for the climate. There’s no escape to our big dumb problems.
klyrs 4y ago
How does HN intend to control the population with small government that respects a free market and civil liberties?
- rocknor 4y ago
  If by "control" you meant "limit", then there's no problem at all. With free market and civil liberties birth rates fall below replacement, causing stagnation and eventually depopulation.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    Okay, sounds great in theory! Do any major world governments fit that description? And if not, what will it take to get them all on board with your ideals?
    - TechBro8615 4y ago
      I think the idea is to start by destroying the fiat banking system...
      - klyrs 4y ago
        That worked so well for Argentina...
      - gremlinsinc 4y ago
        A better system is do away with income tax, and only have a resource tax including land, i.e. land value tax + sales tax + resources extracted from the earth tax. This tax should be high enough to guarantee healthcare, education, food, housing, water to every citizen. A bigger safety net will get more people into college or careers so they'll be too busy to have kids for awhile, and will start a family in their 30s and then maybe only have two kids, if people are slaves to wage then they almost have to get married early to even afford a place to live and that often leads to children not long after. A comfortable and happy society is a well balanced society and will have more natural population i.e. something close to repopulation quotient. I don't have stats on this but maybe compare countries like the USA with Finland, and Denmark which often rank top 10 on 'happy countries' lists.
dinkblam 4y ago
me and 10 billion women
Victerius 4y ago
Less than five hundred million.
renewiltord 4y ago
I believe the carrying capacity is something like 20 billion but we need an energy revolution if we want to keep population at anything above 2 billion and sustainable. The reason is that everyone wants an American lifestyle and that needs a lot of energy. I believe this is possible with large scale nuclear, wind, and solar. I don't think we will ever succeed at austerity. So either we die or we get clean energy.
ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
On Terra? Probably a few millions, tourists coming and going. In the Solar System? Around 1 trillion [1]. Living on a planet is the worst thing you can do as an advanced civilization: little or nothing to do against common occurrences such as hurricanes and regolith-quakes, or even, on a long enough time scale, gamma-ray bursts. Thankfully, as the unwise, mere LUCA [2] spacetime unattended consequences that we are, we are not an advanced civilization. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor
shnp 4y ago
So almost all of energy used by humans today comes (or came) from the sun, directly (solar panels) or indirectly (fossil fuels, plants, meat). You can divide the amount of calories a human needs per day and the amount of energy is provided to earth by the sun per day and that can be the theoretical limit on how many people can live on earth if we are 100% efficient with the energy.
Smithalicious 4y ago
I think current population levels are about right. It's not sustainable right now, but it can be made sustainable.

A lot less. I think humanity overestimates it's ability not to destroy ecossystems to a point where it will make life awful also for most humans. Also I think we constantly underestimate how much was already destroyed.

RC_ITR 4y ago

As many as it can comfortably sustain? Which RN looks like a lot less than 8bn (given climate change and all). Open to your ideas of how we fix that though! I think a resource-light society of many billions would be amazing

twelve40 4y ago
> With less than 5% of the world's population, the U.S. consumes almost 17% of the world's energy > looks like a lot less than 8bn seems like looking at the single total population count for sustainability is ridiculously simplistic since some subsets of this total count consume a helluva lot more than others.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  You don't think that most of those 8bn people strive to live like Americans do? Or do you just think they won't get there?
  - twelve40 4y ago
    it's a great question. At the very least, if they do, they have a chance to avoid some mistakes of the past on the way up, like heavy coal usage, tons of unnecessary plastic, etc. But who knows, right? who knows how it all turns out for them.
    - RC_ITR 4y ago
      I mean I love your optimism, but there’s no way using current or even foreseeable technology for 8bn people to live the life they want to live. Coal is bad because the aerosols, but it’s not like natural gas is that much better for the climate. There’s no escape to our big dumb problems.

klyrs 4y ago

How does HN intend to control the population with small government that respects a free market and civil liberties?

rocknor 4y ago
If by "control" you meant "limit", then there's no problem at all. With free market and civil liberties birth rates fall below replacement, causing stagnation and eventually depopulation.
- klyrs 4y ago
  Okay, sounds great in theory! Do any major world governments fit that description? And if not, what will it take to get them all on board with your ideals?
  - TechBro8615 4y ago
    I think the idea is to start by destroying the fiat banking system...
    - klyrs 4y ago
      That worked so well for Argentina...
    - gremlinsinc 4y ago
      A better system is do away with income tax, and only have a resource tax including land, i.e. land value tax + sales tax + resources extracted from the earth tax. This tax should be high enough to guarantee healthcare, education, food, housing, water to every citizen. A bigger safety net will get more people into college or careers so they'll be too busy to have kids for awhile, and will start a family in their 30s and then maybe only have two kids, if people are slaves to wage then they almost have to get married early to even afford a place to live and that often leads to children not long after. A comfortable and happy society is a well balanced society and will have more natural population i.e. something close to repopulation quotient. I don't have stats on this but maybe compare countries like the USA with Finland, and Denmark which often rank top 10 on 'happy countries' lists.

dinkblam 4y ago

me and 10 billion women

Victerius 4y ago

Less than five hundred million.

renewiltord 4y ago

I believe the carrying capacity is something like 20 billion but we need an energy revolution if we want to keep population at anything above 2 billion and sustainable. The reason is that everyone wants an American lifestyle and that needs a lot of energy. I believe this is possible with large scale nuclear, wind, and solar. I don't think we will ever succeed at austerity. So either we die or we get clean energy.

ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago

On Terra? Probably a few millions, tourists coming and going. In the Solar System? Around 1 trillion [1]. Living on a planet is the worst thing you can do as an advanced civilization: little or nothing to do against common occurrences such as hurricanes and regolith-quakes, or even, on a long enough time scale, gamma-ray bursts. Thankfully, as the unwise, mere LUCA [2] spacetime unattended consequences that we are, we are not an advanced civilization. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor

shnp 4y ago

So almost all of energy used by humans today comes (or came) from the sun, directly (solar panels) or indirectly (fossil fuels, plants, meat). You can divide the amount of calories a human needs per day and the amount of energy is provided to earth by the sun per day and that can be the theoretical limit on how many people can live on earth if we are 100% efficient with the energy.

Smithalicious 4y ago

I think current population levels are about right. It's not sustainable right now, but it can be made sustainable.