5 ms·

This is a tough one to adapt to, and I think important aspects will be to boost productivity of working-age people as much as possible and to go all in on autom

• outlace 4y ago
  Does sustainability or climate change matter if humanity goes extinct?
  • osobo 4y ago
    How does a population drop equal extinction?
    • chaostheory 4y ago
      I think they’re implying the opposite. The world would be destroyed if the total population continues to grow. As of right now, we would need 5 Earths to sustain everyone’s current lifestyle, keeping in mind that more than half the world lives in poverty.
  • xnx 4y ago
    Individually, we all go extinct.
  • delecti 4y ago
    Japan could lose 90% of its population and still have more people just in Japan than existed worldwide ~10,000 years ago. I don't know what the "ideal" number of humans is, but I know we could survive just fine with quite a bit fewer than 8 billion.
    • Msw242 4y ago
      How many rockets were they launching 10k years ago? More people is more good
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • lotsofpulp 4y ago
        > More people is more good Everything exists within the boundary conditions of its environment. Humans, just like any other organism, can strip their environment of resources faster than they can figure out how to escape the environment or build a new one or whatever.
        • brigandish 4y ago
          It's also worth pointing out that, so far, this is not the case. It may be prudent to be, well, prudent, but we're at an all time high in population and an all time low in absolute poverty. It's possible that more people is a factor in this, not less, and that those boundary conditions are never met.
      • toss1 4y ago
        Nonsense. We went to the moon in 1969. The last moon landing was 1973. The world population in 1969 was 3,625,680,627 [0] The world population in 2020 was 2020 7,794,798,739 [0] Today's world population is 8,029,731,569 [1] We've more than doubled the world population in the 50 years since the last moon landing and no country has ever yet made it back. Using your argument, I can unequivocally say that more people is bad. In 1969, there were 324.23 ppm carbon in the atmosphere. Today, there are 416.43 ppm carbon in the atmosphere. [1] This does not even count species mass extinction, other pollution, etc. Even in 1969, there were sufficiently massive real environmental damage concerns to create the EPA within the same presidential administration. This also does not even mention the massive resource constraints and conflicts that inevitably arise with overpopulation. this includes oil, water, lithium, rare-earth minerals, and possibly most important, phosphorus, which is rapidly running out, and when it does, the entire agriculture industry that feeds the current overpopulation will crash, along with the human population. Humans would thrive with something like 1/8 of the population, especially with the level of technology, and will continue to advance. Just consider that a miniscule 6.7% of people have a college degree [2]. That provides something resembling an upper limit on the set of people actively contributing to technological advancement. Interestingly enough, double that is about 1/8 of the population. The view that "some is good, more is better" is just... to be kind, massively simplistic and wrong. [0] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-populat... [1] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ [2] https://educateinspirechange.org/how-many-people-of-the-world-have-a-college-degree/ https://educateinspirechange.org/how-many-people-of-the-worl...
    • mensetmanusman 4y ago
      We would also have to revert to that level of technology because there wouldn’t be enough people to operate at each level in the supply chain to turn raw earth into wiz-bang computers etc.
      • delecti 4y ago
        I was just using that as an example, though I'm not sure 14 million would actually be too few to have that kind of separation of responsibilities. Assuming no genocide or catastrophe, by the time human population gradually dwindled back down to that level, we'd have hopefully settled on a fairly sustainable and automated existence.
      • seunosewa 4y ago
        The rise of AI seems to suggest otherwise.
        • sho_hn 4y ago
          This is still a very shaky ticket to bet on. Yes, the new crop of AI tools promises a lot of productivity gains, but for now they also need well-educated folks to operate them and integrate their output, and we don't quite know what the reliance of AI will do to peoples' educational interest/drive, etc. There might well be an overall downward spiral and loss of operating knowledge lurking there.
          • mensetmanusman 4y ago
            It would mean we reached peak capability as a civilization, and then we would be forced to rely on an artifact that can pull from that subset of knowledge to help patch together machines that broke down until we lost all the hardware to run the AI itself.
  • pjc50 4y ago
    Far too many people in this thread are extrapolating a downwards line forwards for fifty years in the assumption that nothing will change and that nobody will decide to do things differently. Some of the Japanese people being born today - and there are people being born today, the number is not zero - will be alive in 2070. What unites both questions of sustainability of the environment and of population is the question "what, other than money and its getting and spending, are we for?"
    • re-thc 4y ago
      Nothing will change. It will only get worse. There's also people leaving the country. Short of a miracle nothing can fix Japan's issues. It's deep in its culture. It's not a merit based society. Even if someone wants to do things differently it's almost impossible to push for it.
  • BucketsMcG 4y ago
    Humanity goes extinct if sustainability and climate change don't matter. And so does a lot else. We've already ensured through our actions to date that what remains of our time on this earth will be miserable, but we might still stand some chance of not completely ruining the place. A 33% reduction in the population of one country is a tiny step in the right direction, but still far short of making a significant difference.
    • mensetmanusman 4y ago
      Humanity still goes extinct if climate change mattered due to the lifetime of earth/sun.
      • toss1 4y ago
        That is not at all necessarily true. We have another 5 billion years or so before the sun exhausts it's hydrogen and starts substantially changing. Applying even current levels of intelligence and knowledge (nevermind projecting even hints of the growth rates over the last ~10K years since agriculture, writing, etc. started), that is more than sufficient to develop resources for interplanetary and interstellar travel.
  • sho_hn 4y ago
    > Does sustainability or climate change matter if humanity goes extinct? These can be linked, though. I have a lot of young people around me who are hesitant to have kids because of climate change and the period of instability their offspring would be born into. If we manage to address climate change, people may well enjoy the prospect more again.
    • alvah 4y ago
      How will you know when you have addressed climate change? Will there be different climate models from today's, showing everything is now OK?
      • sho_hn 4y ago
        > How will you know when you have addressed climate change? Will there be different climate models from today's, showing everything is now OK? According to what I read in the IPCC reports, we already have those; it's how goals like ones under the Paris Agreement get derived. I'd imagine it's a mix of footprint monitoring to see if we are hitting targets, and updating models based on new knowledge. The bottom line is that a lot of people have a sense of "we're doomed" these days that's at odds with having the energy to make plans for a long-term future, or to look forward to it. If we improve I'd hope the collective zeitgeist would shift accordingly, and give those people a better outlook. My own point of view is ... tricky. I'm relatively wealthy and well-educated. Privileged, really. My kids would be among the most likely to be in a position to contribute to a better world, so maybe having kids is the best ticket to keep the world going. I feel like I should invest the resources I have been lucky to get into family and children. I'm nervous if they'd grow up to agree, however, because this is easy to think while living in relative peace and comfort.
      • pjc50 4y ago
        Same (or slightly improved) models, different data from the records of the next N years.
  • rtkwe 4y ago
    IMO humanity going completely extinct has always been an unlikely outcome, at least from direct climate change causes like food shortages, rising seas, etc. Those are too solvable by just having less people around and/or in different places. Even secondary causes like war are unlikely because eventually one or both sides will lose the ability to fight across the Pacific and Atlantic, kill enough people the resource crisis is alleviated, or humanity and rationality kicks in eventually and agreements are reached to stop fighting. The much more likely is life just gets really bad for a while or at the outside possibility things fall apart enough we slide back a few centuries in some industries. If we go too far back power becomes an interesting issue because we've exploited most of the cheap easily accessible power sources so successor civilizations won't have the easy coal deposits to power a second industrial revolution.
  • kibwen 4y ago
    People voluntarily choosing to have fewer children is not going to cause the extinction of humanity. Consider that there are tons of people still having children, and that whatever genes they may have that predispose them to reproduce will, over time, tend to be passed on. Natural selection is a relentless machine of reproductive incentivization.
• antupis 4y ago
  It also means less people doing innovation and markets that start getting smaller so that will create zero sum mentality.
  • mytailorisrich 4y ago
    > It also means less people doing innovation Not necessarily. Only a small proportion of the general population "does innovation". In fact, automation and boosting productivity may mean (even should mean) more people doing high-value, innovative work. > and markets that start getting smaller It does not matter if a market gets smaller by number of consumers if total population also reduces and individuals are better off. For instance, smaller population means smaller construction industry but also likely fewer builders. Does that imply that a builder will be individually worse off than now? No. They could even be better off if productivity increases drastically.
  • nradov 4y ago
    In the 19th century the USA had plenty of innovation and a widespread growth mindset even though the population was much smaller and less dense.
• noomen 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • snapcaster 4y ago
    Agreed, a lot of anti-human "death cult" mentality surrounding a lot of environmentalism
    • Wyoming23 4y ago
      Oh come on, no there isn't. Have you seen what life in Tokyo looks like for the average person today? The size of apartments, the crowds on subways, etc. People's quality of life would be far better if the population density were lower. I'd much rather have a world with a steady or shrinking number of people and a rising quality of life, than a world with an exponentially growing population and declining quality of life.
      • tmtvl 4y ago
        With all due respect, there is a Japan outside of Tokyo, you know. Japan does not have a problem with population density, Tokyo does, and there are reasons for it.
      • snapcaster 4y ago
        I admit my comment was fairly dramatic, but your comment is sort of what i'm talking about. A specific city is crowded so your solution is to just get rid of the humans? the humans are the whole point! I will admit though my comment is mostly motivated by emotions, i get really bad vibes from people who want fewer humans on earth. Probably letting those vibes cloud my judgement
  • pjc50 4y ago
    HN has some nasty edges at the best of times, but the statistical view of humanity - all that matters is how many people there are and how they fit into the economy - is particularly prone to bringing out this kind of thinking. Everyone's decision to have children or not is individual, and should be addressed as such.
• chaostheory 4y ago
  Most countries use immigration to mitigate this problem. For example, Canada has been unable to naturally replenish their population since 1972. Now they have one of the highest immigration rates in the developed world. Japan as a whole is too xenophobic and racist. They would use robotics & AI rather than allow foreigners to settle and assimilate on a mass scale unlike nearly every developed Western country. South Korea has a similar problem, but I’m less familiar with it As for the reason for Canada’s birth rate woes since 1972, it was not socioeconomic (it’s likely due to declining male fertility). Abortion was only legalized in 1988 in Canada. Housing was affordable during that time and its economy was strong during the long period of consecutive population declines. Of course, like many countries a large portion of Canada’s population, including liberals, are now against immigration due to a combination of housing woes and a healthcare system in turmoil. Unfortunately, Canada has no choice unless they want to see their economy further crater and not have the working adult population to pay for socialized programs such as healthcare. According to statscan, Canada’s NIST, even if they drastically increase immigration; it will only slow down the age population bomb and not prevent it i.e. Retired elderly will still eventually outnumber both working adults and children one day too soon. The speed will likely accelerate due to the Canadian public’s growing distaste for immigration.
• cies 4y ago
  I think the "growth ideology" becomes almost a religion. Economic growth, and subserviently population growth, is very important to the super rich. Sure. But should we then all believe that without growth we are going down? Japan will probably lead the way, but I'm confident we can create societies that thrive and shrink. And if not, I need to see some real hard proof why shrinking has to hurt actual people, instead of using "economic growth" as a goal by itself.
  • s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Well there is nothing inherently bad about shrinking or smaller populations, they do pose significant challenges to the current social and economic models, which are based on growth and large working age populations. Lower Workforce participation means people working more For Less personal reward. It also requires a transition away from using that too fund governmental function. Most governments use GDP growth and a higher future tax base to negate the fact that spend more than they receive. In terms of impact to real people, this means adjusting to life with less material wealth. This doesn't just mean fewer trinkets, but also cuts to social Healthcare and welfare spending
    • cies 4y ago
      So shrinking absolutely leads to austerity measures? I find that hard to believe.
      • s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Nothing is absolute or predetermined, and in fact it is incredibly complicated and uncertain. That said, with all things being equal I would expect austerity simply because you have a smaller and smaller percent of the population working. This means fewer working people to provide services and build things per capita and there is no way around that. Even if you managed to fix income inequality, you still have fewer people to fix your toilet. You also have more elderly that cannot do things for themselves and need assistance so the labor market is hit from both directions
• mensetmanusman 4y ago
  There wont be enough people to repair the automation lines. Society needs certain baseline levels of populations to enable the existence of certain technologies.
• mc32 4y ago
  Maybe like Climate, we set a baseline. Countries agree to a target year (like 1850, or 1960 or whatever and they all agree to take steps to stabilize at those levels with the proviso that there is no forced abortions like the CCP but instead the approach of education, birth control and in places like Japan subsidies to promote stability of population level.