3 ms·

There is a important variable in that you don't touch in your comment, and I know even mentioning its source of controversies and strong emotional responses but

There is a important variable in that you don't touch in your comment, and I know even mentioning its source of controversies and strong emotional responses but it's the elephant in the room, and it is the population number, it shouldn't be that controversial to say that 8 billion people is way too many people and that something should be done to create incentives (NOT force) to reduce that number, and obviously I don't mean doing anything about living people but the generations to come, so it's more about related to the subjects of natality and government than anything.

int_19h 4y ago
Why would the absolute population number matter in this context? More people overall also means more healthcare workers, and healthcare is labor-intensive, so that's where most of the costs ought to be.
- mikrotikker 4y ago
  Better to ban the like button and turn off tiktok etc so kids don't grow up wanting to be famous instead of being a nurse or doctor. Know what, just turn off the Internet, it was a mistake.
- FormerBandmate 4y ago
  Residencies are an artificial cap on healthcare workers. We could, and should, have more
- mattigames 4y ago
  Because a virus that propagates itself based on proximity would have a harder time propagating itself if there were less people in the world.
  - oblio 4y ago
    And most healthcare expenses are for chronic diseases, not for pandemies...
Octabrain 4y ago
Which metric do you use for concluding that we are "way too many people"? Have you read serious literature on the matter? It is simply because 8 billion people sounds like a big number per se? I am asking in good faith and with a genuine interest in your answer. By default, I have to admit that I think that statements like that, without the proper reasoning or maths behind, are among one of the most mysanthropic and lazy things a person can state.
- mattigames 4y ago
  Are you seriously asking why a virus that propagates itself based on proximity would have a harder time propagating itself if there were less people in the world? There is nothing misanthropic about stating that we are too many, unless of course you assume that I mean that anything more than zero is too many or a similar ridiculous interpretaron, otherwise it's just a very simple proposition about resource management, and arguing its misanthropic is a emotional response without much through, no reasonable person would call a man who wants the exact opposite -lets say 100 billion human population- a "lover of humanity" or anything remotely similar, then what is the logic to call me a hater of humanity for suggesting humanity itself is better off with less humans living at the same time?
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    Because you're arguing "too many" without being able to define "enough." The fact that the number is big doesn't mean anything here. Is 100 billion too many stars in the galaxy? > humanity itself is better off with less humans living at the same time? Humanity isn't an entity, but each of those humans is. Every single one of them a life as rich and complex and deserving as your own. What path are you suggesting for reducing that number, destroying some of that complexity and richness? This cannot be responsibly debated in the abstract; any concrete policy will result in constraining the self-determination of many of those people. How would you have it done?
  - Octabrain 4y ago
    > arguing its misanthropic is a emotional response without much through. Fallacious to say the least. I've explained the reason on why I think it implies that, which is: "people that makes that affirmation with no data or maths to back it up". Which I think is a quite reasonable thing to ask. You reducing it to a "is an emotional response" is a very poor take and bad reading. Regarding your initial question. I am sorry but I don't see the correlation. The Black Death, for instance, killed between 75 and 200 million people back in 1340-1350 where world population was approx 350,000,000. Following your reasoning, this shouldn't had happened? Initially, I was expecting from you to give a decent argument like: "There is a strong correlation between wealth, development and low birth rates". Then, based on that, talk perhaps about incentivicing sustainable economic growth. But nope, just talking about reducing humanity by "incentivicing" without being specific or considering the grave implications and then later, talking about your guessing on how covid wouldn't have been a problem.

int_19h 4y ago

Why would the absolute population number matter in this context? More people overall also means more healthcare workers, and healthcare is labor-intensive, so that's where most of the costs ought to be.

mikrotikker 4y ago
Better to ban the like button and turn off tiktok etc so kids don't grow up wanting to be famous instead of being a nurse or doctor. Know what, just turn off the Internet, it was a mistake.
FormerBandmate 4y ago
Residencies are an artificial cap on healthcare workers. We could, and should, have more
mattigames 4y ago
Because a virus that propagates itself based on proximity would have a harder time propagating itself if there were less people in the world.
- oblio 4y ago
  And most healthcare expenses are for chronic diseases, not for pandemies...

Octabrain 4y ago

Which metric do you use for concluding that we are "way too many people"? Have you read serious literature on the matter? It is simply because 8 billion people sounds like a big number per se? I am asking in good faith and with a genuine interest in your answer. By default, I have to admit that I think that statements like that, without the proper reasoning or maths behind, are among one of the most mysanthropic and lazy things a person can state.

mattigames 4y ago
Are you seriously asking why a virus that propagates itself based on proximity would have a harder time propagating itself if there were less people in the world? There is nothing misanthropic about stating that we are too many, unless of course you assume that I mean that anything more than zero is too many or a similar ridiculous interpretaron, otherwise it's just a very simple proposition about resource management, and arguing its misanthropic is a emotional response without much through, no reasonable person would call a man who wants the exact opposite -lets say 100 billion human population- a "lover of humanity" or anything remotely similar, then what is the logic to call me a hater of humanity for suggesting humanity itself is better off with less humans living at the same time?
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Because you're arguing "too many" without being able to define "enough." The fact that the number is big doesn't mean anything here. Is 100 billion too many stars in the galaxy? > humanity itself is better off with less humans living at the same time? Humanity isn't an entity, but each of those humans is. Every single one of them a life as rich and complex and deserving as your own. What path are you suggesting for reducing that number, destroying some of that complexity and richness? This cannot be responsibly debated in the abstract; any concrete policy will result in constraining the self-determination of many of those people. How would you have it done?
- Octabrain 4y ago
  > arguing its misanthropic is a emotional response without much through. Fallacious to say the least. I've explained the reason on why I think it implies that, which is: "people that makes that affirmation with no data or maths to back it up". Which I think is a quite reasonable thing to ask. You reducing it to a "is an emotional response" is a very poor take and bad reading. Regarding your initial question. I am sorry but I don't see the correlation. The Black Death, for instance, killed between 75 and 200 million people back in 1340-1350 where world population was approx 350,000,000. Following your reasoning, this shouldn't had happened? Initially, I was expecting from you to give a decent argument like: "There is a strong correlation between wealth, development and low birth rates". Then, based on that, talk perhaps about incentivicing sustainable economic growth. But nope, just talking about reducing humanity by "incentivicing" without being specific or considering the grave implications and then later, talking about your guessing on how covid wouldn't have been a problem.