3 ms·

Hopefully we can do this for the species as a whole and gradually find equilibrium at a more sustainable population.

by CalRobert 3y ago

gsich 3y ago
Overpopulation is currently not a problem for humanity.
- louwrentius 3y ago
  Indeed and it has been a dog whistle for the eugenics crowd since the 70s. https://twitter.com/IfBooksPod/status/1603412908184309760?lang=en https://twitter.com/IfBooksPod/status/1603412908184309760?la...
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    I don't understand how my comment has anything to do with Eugenics.
    - louwrentius 3y ago
      Follow the link for context. The whole overpopulation topic is an old scare with ties to eugenics
      - CalRobert 3y ago
        I haven't said anything about "the wrong kind of people having babies" and have been pro-immigration in another comment so I don't see how this has anything to do with what I said. Would 15 billion people be too many? 20 billion? Are we to imagine that Earth could support an infinite number of people? Because that seems like magical thinking to me. Though a different lifestyle (vegan, low energy consumption, etc.) would probably allow the current number to get by fine.
        louwrentius 3y ago
        The world can sustain the current number of people many times over in terms of food supply. Indeed based on sustainable (vegetarian/vegan) food. Talking about how many people can be sustained by earth is talking about the wrong thing. It only leads and HAS only lead to the eugenetics part. Because it's always poor people in different countries who gets sterilised. The real topic is that capitalism and consumerism is 100% unsustainable, right from the start. That is the real debate to be had. That this world is not about human well-being and happyness, but about GDP and growth, making a tiny number of people wealthy at the expense and misery of the majority. Unfortunately this site - Hacker News - and everything related to it, Ycombinator, Paul Graham, is only fueling the capitalist game.
        CalRobert 3y ago
        I still don't see how my comment specifically relating to reductions in the birth rate in the US (a rich country) perhaps becoming a trend for all humans is remotely similar to sterilizing poor people in different countries.
        louwrentius 3y ago
        > and gradually find equilibrium at a more sustainable population. You talk about "sustainable population", there's nothing not to understand about this. Sustainable implies it's now unsustainable, but that notion isn't true.
        mytailorisrich 3y ago
        If we must all become vegeterian/vegan then to me that proves that the planet is currently overpopulated. In my view a sustainable population level is one that does not require drastic measures because ultimately we want the best quality of life we can have and not live like in a dystopian movie.
        louwrentius 3y ago
        Going vegetarian/vegan is about the environment, not about the number of people. Even with half of the world population, meat-based diets are unsustainable. Why do people insist on making this an eugenics talking point? The number of people is not the problem.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  It actually is considering that the root cause of our environmental problems is human activity and that billions of people are still poor. For instance, when we're told we need to eat less meat, we'll it's not so much that meat production is a problem, it's that meat production for billions of people is a problem. So all the constraining measures we're seeing either being suggested or enforced "for the environment/climate" are constraints to fit so many people on the planet.
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    Similarly, there are groups who encourage people to go vegetarian or vegan for the climate, which makes some sense, but considering how few people do so long-term we might be better served by encouraging people to treat beef, dairy, etc. as a treat (or at least not something you need 365 days a year) than forgoing these things completely.
- another_story 3y ago
  Overconsumption certainly is, and that's tied to population.
  - gsich 3y ago
    No, the average 1st world citizen consumes vastly more than 3rd world.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  At what number would you consider it a problem? For what it's worth, I would be delighted to live on a planet of 10 billion people who have found a way to live in a way that can persist for millenia, but we don't seem to have done so. Although, living in a well-insulated flat made with renewably-grown timber (a great carbon sink!) walking and biking distance from all of my daily needs where my meagre energy needs are met with 100% renewable energy (when I lived in San Diego I worked from home and our apartment's average load was 100 Watts so this can be done!) on a mostly-vegan diet and working 20 hours per week or less sounds pretty nice to me.
  - gsich 3y ago
    Probably 200 billion, going by population sensity.
exitb 3y ago
Is there a factor that would make it stabilise at some equilibrium, rather than fall indefinitely?
- dumpsterdiver 3y ago
  I believe so, yes. If birth rates continue to decline then the pool of available workers will decline, and their work will become much more valuable. At that point, workers will be making enough money to feel comfortable enough to have children again.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    Exactly. I'm boggling at all these people who think that a dip is an inevitable decline and that civilisation will evaporate in a straight line without anyone ever thinking to change anything.
    - dumpsterdiver 3y ago
      On the other hand there is always the possibility that we regress to a sort of feudal age, and the lords of the land require that all inhabitants produce children while surviving off of the allotted amount of rations, otherwise they face consequences. Edit: Not only are there natural corrections that occur, there is also a lot of room for human-made "corrections". Is it ugly? Yes. Is it unfair? Yes. Will it ensure that the local economy continues to function? Yes. The vast majority of us in such a scenario would live in poverty. (This is where I go off the deep end) Imo, the proliferation of LLM's will truly lead to massive amounts of people being displaced from meaningful work. I foresee that in the not-so-distant future "normal people" who didn't attend elite institutions (or who are otherwise not extraordinary in some sense) will only find "flesh work" available to them - i.e. prostitutes. As long as human flesh exists there will always be work for humans. It's dark, I know, but ask yourself if it's true. Disclaimer: I find prostitution appalling and sad, but its existence is no secret. In my experience the people who are okay with it are either socially inept people who can't manage to hold down a partner, or socially competent people who are bored with their partner(s). In the latter case I wonder, why not just get a new partner? I didn't ask them about it because the answer doesn't actually matter to me. To them I say, "Do you", just as I would say to the poor souls who know no other way. Who am I to question how someone feeds their kids? I don't even have kids.
DoingIsLearning 3y ago
It's game theory the same as pollution. "We" can do whatever we want but if not "everyone" is doing it then the impact is fairly limited. You would be better off having children and just consuming less than making a grave decision that impacts your whole family tree for the sake of a Humanity collective that likely will not be making the same "sacrifice".
- nelox 3y ago
  Er … for those potential parents already living at the economic margins, where having a child would be a demonstrably poor decision, then just having children and consuming less would help them or their children how? Indeed, who is to say that the perpetuation of one’s family tree is at all desirable or necessary? Maybe the best outcome is not to play the game at all.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  I don't see how a two-child family is a sacrifice, really. But regardless, it seems like people have fewer children by choice as they become wealthier, have better access to education and birth control, etc. How many families are large because the person who had to be pregnant had no real say in the matter?
shjake 3y ago
> find equilibrium Like working into your 70s
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Hopefully we can do this for the species as a whole and gradually find equilibrium at a more sustainable population.

gsich 3y ago

Overpopulation is currently not a problem for humanity.

louwrentius 3y ago
Indeed and it has been a dog whistle for the eugenics crowd since the 70s. https://twitter.com/IfBooksPod/status/1603412908184309760?lang=en https://twitter.com/IfBooksPod/status/1603412908184309760?la...
- CalRobert 3y ago
  I don't understand how my comment has anything to do with Eugenics.
  - louwrentius 3y ago
    Follow the link for context. The whole overpopulation topic is an old scare with ties to eugenics
    - CalRobert 3y ago
      I haven't said anything about "the wrong kind of people having babies" and have been pro-immigration in another comment so I don't see how this has anything to do with what I said. Would 15 billion people be too many? 20 billion? Are we to imagine that Earth could support an infinite number of people? Because that seems like magical thinking to me. Though a different lifestyle (vegan, low energy consumption, etc.) would probably allow the current number to get by fine.
      - louwrentius 3y ago
        The world can sustain the current number of people many times over in terms of food supply. Indeed based on sustainable (vegetarian/vegan) food. Talking about how many people can be sustained by earth is talking about the wrong thing. It only leads and HAS only lead to the eugenetics part. Because it's always poor people in different countries who gets sterilised. The real topic is that capitalism and consumerism is 100% unsustainable, right from the start. That is the real debate to be had. That this world is not about human well-being and happyness, but about GDP and growth, making a tiny number of people wealthy at the expense and misery of the majority. Unfortunately this site - Hacker News - and everything related to it, Ycombinator, Paul Graham, is only fueling the capitalist game.
        CalRobert 3y ago
        I still don't see how my comment specifically relating to reductions in the birth rate in the US (a rich country) perhaps becoming a trend for all humans is remotely similar to sterilizing poor people in different countries.
        louwrentius 3y ago
        > and gradually find equilibrium at a more sustainable population. You talk about "sustainable population", there's nothing not to understand about this. Sustainable implies it's now unsustainable, but that notion isn't true.
        mytailorisrich 3y ago
        If we must all become vegeterian/vegan then to me that proves that the planet is currently overpopulated. In my view a sustainable population level is one that does not require drastic measures because ultimately we want the best quality of life we can have and not live like in a dystopian movie.
        louwrentius 3y ago
        Going vegetarian/vegan is about the environment, not about the number of people. Even with half of the world population, meat-based diets are unsustainable. Why do people insist on making this an eugenics talking point? The number of people is not the problem.
mytailorisrich 3y ago
It actually is considering that the root cause of our environmental problems is human activity and that billions of people are still poor. For instance, when we're told we need to eat less meat, we'll it's not so much that meat production is a problem, it's that meat production for billions of people is a problem. So all the constraining measures we're seeing either being suggested or enforced "for the environment/climate" are constraints to fit so many people on the planet.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  Similarly, there are groups who encourage people to go vegetarian or vegan for the climate, which makes some sense, but considering how few people do so long-term we might be better served by encouraging people to treat beef, dairy, etc. as a treat (or at least not something you need 365 days a year) than forgoing these things completely.
another_story 3y ago
Overconsumption certainly is, and that's tied to population.
- gsich 3y ago
  No, the average 1st world citizen consumes vastly more than 3rd world.
CalRobert 3y ago
At what number would you consider it a problem? For what it's worth, I would be delighted to live on a planet of 10 billion people who have found a way to live in a way that can persist for millenia, but we don't seem to have done so. Although, living in a well-insulated flat made with renewably-grown timber (a great carbon sink!) walking and biking distance from all of my daily needs where my meagre energy needs are met with 100% renewable energy (when I lived in San Diego I worked from home and our apartment's average load was 100 Watts so this can be done!) on a mostly-vegan diet and working 20 hours per week or less sounds pretty nice to me.
- gsich 3y ago
  Probably 200 billion, going by population sensity.

exitb 3y ago

Is there a factor that would make it stabilise at some equilibrium, rather than fall indefinitely?

dumpsterdiver 3y ago
I believe so, yes. If birth rates continue to decline then the pool of available workers will decline, and their work will become much more valuable. At that point, workers will be making enough money to feel comfortable enough to have children again.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Exactly. I'm boggling at all these people who think that a dip is an inevitable decline and that civilisation will evaporate in a straight line without anyone ever thinking to change anything.
  - dumpsterdiver 3y ago
    On the other hand there is always the possibility that we regress to a sort of feudal age, and the lords of the land require that all inhabitants produce children while surviving off of the allotted amount of rations, otherwise they face consequences. Edit: Not only are there natural corrections that occur, there is also a lot of room for human-made "corrections". Is it ugly? Yes. Is it unfair? Yes. Will it ensure that the local economy continues to function? Yes. The vast majority of us in such a scenario would live in poverty. (This is where I go off the deep end) Imo, the proliferation of LLM's will truly lead to massive amounts of people being displaced from meaningful work. I foresee that in the not-so-distant future "normal people" who didn't attend elite institutions (or who are otherwise not extraordinary in some sense) will only find "flesh work" available to them - i.e. prostitutes. As long as human flesh exists there will always be work for humans. It's dark, I know, but ask yourself if it's true. Disclaimer: I find prostitution appalling and sad, but its existence is no secret. In my experience the people who are okay with it are either socially inept people who can't manage to hold down a partner, or socially competent people who are bored with their partner(s). In the latter case I wonder, why not just get a new partner? I didn't ask them about it because the answer doesn't actually matter to me. To them I say, "Do you", just as I would say to the poor souls who know no other way. Who am I to question how someone feeds their kids? I don't even have kids.

DoingIsLearning 3y ago

It's game theory the same as pollution. "We" can do whatever we want but if not "everyone" is doing it then the impact is fairly limited. You would be better off having children and just consuming less than making a grave decision that impacts your whole family tree for the sake of a Humanity collective that likely will not be making the same "sacrifice".

nelox 3y ago
Er … for those potential parents already living at the economic margins, where having a child would be a demonstrably poor decision, then just having children and consuming less would help them or their children how? Indeed, who is to say that the perpetuation of one’s family tree is at all desirable or necessary? Maybe the best outcome is not to play the game at all.
CalRobert 3y ago
I don't see how a two-child family is a sacrifice, really. But regardless, it seems like people have fewer children by choice as they become wealthier, have better access to education and birth control, etc. How many families are large because the person who had to be pregnant had no real say in the matter?

shjake 3y ago

> find equilibrium Like working into your 70s

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]