4 ms·

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

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.
  - mattigames 4y ago
    This is the point I would block you but HN has no such button, you really trying to compare current issues from an age people had not the slightest idea for virus worked, that we have no sewers or a lot of things that are now basic higiene. The most obvious incentive is economic, paying childless people to be sterilized, maybe around $3000. No point arguing any more, if you ever really want to learn about this there is a book called "Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update", good riddance.
    - Octabrain 4y ago
      > This is the point I would block you but HN has no such button. Great arguments /s. Anyways, I truly hoped from the beggining a honest exchange of ideas. Instead, I've had you feeling atacked and reacting with condescending attitude. Very dissapointing interaction. Have a good life.

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.
- mattigames 4y ago
  This is the point I would block you but HN has no such button, you really trying to compare current issues from an age people had not the slightest idea for virus worked, that we have no sewers or a lot of things that are now basic higiene. The most obvious incentive is economic, paying childless people to be sterilized, maybe around $3000. No point arguing any more, if you ever really want to learn about this there is a book called "Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update", good riddance.
  - Octabrain 4y ago
    > This is the point I would block you but HN has no such button. Great arguments /s. Anyways, I truly hoped from the beggining a honest exchange of ideas. Instead, I've had you feeling atacked and reacting with condescending attitude. Very dissapointing interaction. Have a good life.