5 ms·

Maybe we shouldn't be 8 billion

jjoe 4y ago
Also said by Bill Gates https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/africas-rapid-population-growth-puts-poverty-progress-at-risk-says-gates https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/africas-rapid-populat...
- account42 4y ago
  Bill has three kids so why should anyone listen to him about this if he wasn't willing to do his part?
  - remh 4y ago
    His youngest kid is 20 years old. Are you suggesting that one's perspective cannot change in 20 years or that he should kill his kids?
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      It's important to note that Bill Gate's view is that population reduction should be done by lifting the world's women out of poverty and giving everyone easy access to birth control methods. This is decidedly less gross than the typical "we have too many people" take. In fact, Bill's take can be valid even if you believe the earth can support billions of more people sustainably.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    He also flies around in private jets (to this day, not only 20 years ago!) while scolding common people for owning cars. The logic of these rich fucks is something along the lines of "there are few rich people, so rich people polluting doesn't matter. There are lots of poor people, so poor people polluting matters a lot." Rules for thee, not for me. Money is privilege and they think this puts them above the standards they wish to impose on others.
- wazoox 4y ago
  The problem isn't the Africans with a ridiculously small environmental footprint. The problem is with moguls such as Bill Gates constantly flying in private jet, having more impact each day than an African over their whole life.
  - slothtrop 4y ago
    They only have a ridiculously small environmental footprint until they end up moving to the 1st world. And they aren't moving to consume less. Immigration is pegged as a matter of policy to boost consumption, and increase wealth for the wealthy. The fertility rate in the 1st world is stagnant - immigration is the reason the population grows. Emissions rise because of demand, and for the past 20 years, that demand has been a result of rising economies (e.g. China), and to a lesser extent growth in the Western world (through immigration). Emissions will keep rising until that quells. Fortunately, it's projected to in 100 years or so, but ending that sooner is possible and warranted. We can achieve this with universal access to contraceptives, and by lifting countries out of poverty more rapidly.
refurb 4y ago
Why not? I mean nobody creates the rules except us.
- lm28469 4y ago
  Yeah I guess, if you don't care about sustainability, pollution, the old vs young ratio (which brings societal issues such as retirement, healthcare, old age care), destruction of natural habitat, &c. The "no rules" mindset is exactly what brought us in this position. We could be 30b actually, maybe more, there are no hard limits if you discard every variables...
  - account42 4y ago
    The old vs young ratio is only a problem when you have fewer kids than previous generations. Which is why it is now being used as an argument for immigration.
- Gud 4y ago
  Mother nature creates the rules. Eventually we'll find out what the balance was.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    Only if the simulation hypothesis is false!
  - refurb 4y ago
    We’ve already broken the rules of nature already, we can do it again.
- slothtrop 4y ago
  Maybe it's violates another rule we like, and we can't keep both. If we posit that it's a positive thing that anyone in the world have unrestricted capacity to own a home, vehicle, pursue happiness and basically make use of resources as a Westerner does, then keeping the number lean could respect that - if the resource extraction, land encroachment and other externalities from demand become a problem at scale. The fantasy from the greens is that Westerners are "consuming more and more". Really, there are just more people consuming.
themaninthedark 4y ago
Sure, who do we kill or sterilize? Because that is what it boils down to, either low class people from your society are chosen or some other people over there. With the other people over there, good luck! because they sure as hell don't want to stop living. As for your own lower class, good luck! because they already see that the people in charge are massive hypocrites(i.e. in order to stop climate change we need to reduce air travel! Oh but we all need to take private jets to the conference in Egypt...but our work there will more than make up for the carbon we use...)
- slothtrop 4y ago
  No, it takes: universal access to contraceptives and developed economy. That's it. Global population growth is projected to stagnate in 100 years - it's happening, just a question of whether it's sooner rather than later.

jjoe 4y ago

Also said by Bill Gates https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/africas-rapid-population-growth-puts-poverty-progress-at-risk-says-gates https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/africas-rapid-populat...

account42 4y ago
Bill has three kids so why should anyone listen to him about this if he wasn't willing to do his part?
- remh 4y ago
  His youngest kid is 20 years old. Are you suggesting that one's perspective cannot change in 20 years or that he should kill his kids?
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    It's important to note that Bill Gate's view is that population reduction should be done by lifting the world's women out of poverty and giving everyone easy access to birth control methods. This is decidedly less gross than the typical "we have too many people" take. In fact, Bill's take can be valid even if you believe the earth can support billions of more people sustainably.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  He also flies around in private jets (to this day, not only 20 years ago!) while scolding common people for owning cars. The logic of these rich fucks is something along the lines of "there are few rich people, so rich people polluting doesn't matter. There are lots of poor people, so poor people polluting matters a lot." Rules for thee, not for me. Money is privilege and they think this puts them above the standards they wish to impose on others.
wazoox 4y ago
The problem isn't the Africans with a ridiculously small environmental footprint. The problem is with moguls such as Bill Gates constantly flying in private jet, having more impact each day than an African over their whole life.
- slothtrop 4y ago
  They only have a ridiculously small environmental footprint until they end up moving to the 1st world. And they aren't moving to consume less. Immigration is pegged as a matter of policy to boost consumption, and increase wealth for the wealthy. The fertility rate in the 1st world is stagnant - immigration is the reason the population grows. Emissions rise because of demand, and for the past 20 years, that demand has been a result of rising economies (e.g. China), and to a lesser extent growth in the Western world (through immigration). Emissions will keep rising until that quells. Fortunately, it's projected to in 100 years or so, but ending that sooner is possible and warranted. We can achieve this with universal access to contraceptives, and by lifting countries out of poverty more rapidly.

refurb 4y ago

Why not? I mean nobody creates the rules except us.

lm28469 4y ago
Yeah I guess, if you don't care about sustainability, pollution, the old vs young ratio (which brings societal issues such as retirement, healthcare, old age care), destruction of natural habitat, &c. The "no rules" mindset is exactly what brought us in this position. We could be 30b actually, maybe more, there are no hard limits if you discard every variables...
- account42 4y ago
  The old vs young ratio is only a problem when you have fewer kids than previous generations. Which is why it is now being used as an argument for immigration.
Gud 4y ago
Mother nature creates the rules. Eventually we'll find out what the balance was.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  Only if the simulation hypothesis is false!
- refurb 4y ago
  We’ve already broken the rules of nature already, we can do it again.
slothtrop 4y ago
Maybe it's violates another rule we like, and we can't keep both. If we posit that it's a positive thing that anyone in the world have unrestricted capacity to own a home, vehicle, pursue happiness and basically make use of resources as a Westerner does, then keeping the number lean could respect that - if the resource extraction, land encroachment and other externalities from demand become a problem at scale. The fantasy from the greens is that Westerners are "consuming more and more". Really, there are just more people consuming.

themaninthedark 4y ago

Sure, who do we kill or sterilize? Because that is what it boils down to, either low class people from your society are chosen or some other people over there. With the other people over there, good luck! because they sure as hell don't want to stop living. As for your own lower class, good luck! because they already see that the people in charge are massive hypocrites(i.e. in order to stop climate change we need to reduce air travel! Oh but we all need to take private jets to the conference in Egypt...but our work there will more than make up for the carbon we use...)

slothtrop 4y ago
No, it takes: universal access to contraceptives and developed economy. That's it. Global population growth is projected to stagnate in 100 years - it's happening, just a question of whether it's sooner rather than later.