5 ms·

I really don't see this as a problem, humans are using resources at an unsustainable rate, we need fewer people, not more.

by nr2x 4y ago

threatripper 4y ago
We also need to maintain a balance in military power or else the country with more "firepower" will take over their geriatric neighboring country.
- hgsgm 4y ago
- f6v 4y ago
  Yes, US-Mexican war was terrible.
- nradov 4y ago
  The era of mass armies ended decades ago. Military power is now more a function of GDP than population size. For South Korea, the only significant neighboring countries they might need to worry about are North Korea, China, and Japan. All of those have similar demographic problems.
  - bhouston 4y ago
    Don't be so sure. I could easily see a country that has a pretty horrid demographic decline being invaded by a verile neighbour filled with young people who want more space. They will likely view it as taking what is rightfully theirs from their decadent and declining neighbours. I suspect that will happen quite a bit in the next century. There is never an end to history, no matter how much we wish to believe that. It will just happen the next time around with a lot more remote killing machines and a lot of online multi-channel propaganda.
ram4jesus 4y ago
This is a Malthusian attitude that does not really encourage problem solving and collaboration; it's antihumanist to the core. We should not retreat from our problems but solve them creatively - how do you do that? By solving's people's needs and enabling them to do what they want without worrying about poverty.
- yesenadam 4y ago
  Seems to me that glibly throwing labels at people like that - Malthusian, antihumanist to the core - really doesn't "encourage problem solving and collaboration".
  - ram4jesus 4y ago
    Saying we have too many people is way too close to fringe ideas like ‘useless eaters’ or something worse. Those beliefs need to be challenged at any opportunity as they are borderline dogwhistles.
    - yesenadam 4y ago
      Ok well, what we (should aspire to) do on HN is not throw labels or say ominously "X is way too close to Y", which also explains nothing, but calmly explain to the GP what, in your opinion, the problem is with what they said. Using facts, reason, shared ground, your experience. Teach us something, if you can. It's not easy, and takes some effort. Just throwing labels or slippery slopes around does nothing but make HN worse. Or, for example, explain why you say "antihumanist", and someone might be able to engage with your reasoning, argue with your assumptions, or even teach you something. As is, about half of the paragraphs in the guidelines "In comments" section apply to your comments on this page, I think. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
f6v 4y ago
The world population is still growing. There’s going to be significantly more people wanting to jump into lower middle class and consume even more. Koreans not reproducing changes nothing.
AbrahamParangi 4y ago
I think it’s wrong to say that we need fewer people when one actually means we need fewer other people. This statement, being more accurate is much less defensible.
- Klinky 4y ago
  I think it's still perfectly defensible, so long as you're equitable to all, and "other" isn't code for being a racist. Everyone should have access to birth control, family planning and advanced life opportunities. Everyone should have the opportunity to live a sustainable fulfilling life. That's often not possible if you're born into poverty, born to parents who didn't want you, or socially/culturally pressured into having children young. The solution is better education, better contraceptive access & more sustainable economies that don't rely on endless growth that grinds human lives away for a pittance.
- rajin444 4y ago
  > This statement, being more accurate is much less defensible. Why is that less defensible? Any other stance will see the end of your people and culture. And if that's desirable, why are you practicing a culture you wish to see end? Or we could all come together, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
- krisoft 4y ago
  You twist what was said and then you say it is not defensible. Not cool. There are two ways one can understand what you said and both are terrible takes. You might imagine that everyone is somehow secretly racist/nationalistic/egoistic and somehow when they say we need fewer people they secretly mean that fewer of other “kind of” people. This is not true. When I say we need fewer people I include “my people” in that too, for whatever arbitrary grouping you would deem “my” people. The other possible take is that you think everyone who thinks there should be fever people should commit suicide, or if they don’t they clearly mean “fewer other people”. This is also silly. In this context nobody proposes that we should get fewer people by killing anyone. People die. If you just stop making so many of them we will end up with less of them.
- nr2x 4y ago
jorblumesea 4y ago
The problem is that population growth/reduction isn't even. African nations will not stop having kids because S. Korea is having less.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  Sure they will[1]. Their declining birth rate just lags SK's by a few decades. Birth rate is generally inversely proportional to development and educational attainment in a country. As "global south" countries catch up on these metrics their birth rates will likely decrease. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFR/africa/birth-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFR/africa/birth-rate
homonculus1 4y ago
There aren't going to be fewer people as a result of this, there are just going to be fewer South Koreans in South Korea. When developed nations pursue non-procreative social policies and lose their demographics, they get internally replaced from undeveloped nations. The global population continues to grow.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  The growth of the global population is slowing[1]. Undeveloped nations are developing, and as they do their birth rate drops as well. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/birth-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/birth-rate
mitthrowaway2 4y ago
For a demographic pyramid, just like a car accident, it's the acceleration that does the damage. If this happened more gradually it wouldn't be as much of a problem for the worker/retiree ratio.
- nr2x 4y ago
  I've got no pity for the retirees who caused a lot of the environmental crisis in the first place.
  - mitthrowaway2 4y ago
    It's the kids who will be bearing the weight, not the retirees.

I really don't see this as a problem, humans are using resources at an unsustainable rate, we need fewer people, not more.

by nr2x 4y ago

I really don't see this as a problem, humans are using resources at an unsustainable rate, we need fewer people, not more.

threatripper 4y ago

We also need to maintain a balance in military power or else the country with more "firepower" will take over their geriatric neighboring country.

hgsgm 4y ago
f6v 4y ago
Yes, US-Mexican war was terrible.
nradov 4y ago
The era of mass armies ended decades ago. Military power is now more a function of GDP than population size. For South Korea, the only significant neighboring countries they might need to worry about are North Korea, China, and Japan. All of those have similar demographic problems.
- bhouston 4y ago
  Don't be so sure. I could easily see a country that has a pretty horrid demographic decline being invaded by a verile neighbour filled with young people who want more space. They will likely view it as taking what is rightfully theirs from their decadent and declining neighbours. I suspect that will happen quite a bit in the next century. There is never an end to history, no matter how much we wish to believe that. It will just happen the next time around with a lot more remote killing machines and a lot of online multi-channel propaganda.

ram4jesus 4y ago

This is a Malthusian attitude that does not really encourage problem solving and collaboration; it's antihumanist to the core. We should not retreat from our problems but solve them creatively - how do you do that? By solving's people's needs and enabling them to do what they want without worrying about poverty.

yesenadam 4y ago
Seems to me that glibly throwing labels at people like that - Malthusian, antihumanist to the core - really doesn't "encourage problem solving and collaboration".
- ram4jesus 4y ago
  Saying we have too many people is way too close to fringe ideas like ‘useless eaters’ or something worse. Those beliefs need to be challenged at any opportunity as they are borderline dogwhistles.
  - yesenadam 4y ago
    Ok well, what we (should aspire to) do on HN is not throw labels or say ominously "X is way too close to Y", which also explains nothing, but calmly explain to the GP what, in your opinion, the problem is with what they said. Using facts, reason, shared ground, your experience. Teach us something, if you can. It's not easy, and takes some effort. Just throwing labels or slippery slopes around does nothing but make HN worse. Or, for example, explain why you say "antihumanist", and someone might be able to engage with your reasoning, argue with your assumptions, or even teach you something. As is, about half of the paragraphs in the guidelines "In comments" section apply to your comments on this page, I think. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

f6v 4y ago

The world population is still growing. There’s going to be significantly more people wanting to jump into lower middle class and consume even more. Koreans not reproducing changes nothing.

AbrahamParangi 4y ago

I think it’s wrong to say that we need fewer people when one actually means we need fewer other people. This statement, being more accurate is much less defensible.

Klinky 4y ago
I think it's still perfectly defensible, so long as you're equitable to all, and "other" isn't code for being a racist. Everyone should have access to birth control, family planning and advanced life opportunities. Everyone should have the opportunity to live a sustainable fulfilling life. That's often not possible if you're born into poverty, born to parents who didn't want you, or socially/culturally pressured into having children young. The solution is better education, better contraceptive access & more sustainable economies that don't rely on endless growth that grinds human lives away for a pittance.
rajin444 4y ago
> This statement, being more accurate is much less defensible. Why is that less defensible? Any other stance will see the end of your people and culture. And if that's desirable, why are you practicing a culture you wish to see end? Or we could all come together, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
krisoft 4y ago
You twist what was said and then you say it is not defensible. Not cool. There are two ways one can understand what you said and both are terrible takes. You might imagine that everyone is somehow secretly racist/nationalistic/egoistic and somehow when they say we need fewer people they secretly mean that fewer of other “kind of” people. This is not true. When I say we need fewer people I include “my people” in that too, for whatever arbitrary grouping you would deem “my” people. The other possible take is that you think everyone who thinks there should be fever people should commit suicide, or if they don’t they clearly mean “fewer other people”. This is also silly. In this context nobody proposes that we should get fewer people by killing anyone. People die. If you just stop making so many of them we will end up with less of them.
nr2x 4y ago

jorblumesea 4y ago

The problem is that population growth/reduction isn't even. African nations will not stop having kids because S. Korea is having less.

AlexandrB 4y ago
Sure they will[1]. Their declining birth rate just lags SK's by a few decades. Birth rate is generally inversely proportional to development and educational attainment in a country. As "global south" countries catch up on these metrics their birth rates will likely decrease. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFR/africa/birth-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFR/africa/birth-rate

homonculus1 4y ago

There aren't going to be fewer people as a result of this, there are just going to be fewer South Koreans in South Korea. When developed nations pursue non-procreative social policies and lose their demographics, they get internally replaced from undeveloped nations. The global population continues to grow.

AlexandrB 4y ago
The growth of the global population is slowing[1]. Undeveloped nations are developing, and as they do their birth rate drops as well. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/birth-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/birth-rate

mitthrowaway2 4y ago

For a demographic pyramid, just like a car accident, it's the acceleration that does the damage. If this happened more gradually it wouldn't be as much of a problem for the worker/retiree ratio.

nr2x 4y ago
I've got no pity for the retirees who caused a lot of the environmental crisis in the first place.
- mitthrowaway2 4y ago
  It's the kids who will be bearing the weight, not the retirees.