7 ms·

Good. Most of our modern problems are due to too many people. House prices, inflation, traffic, pollution, climate change, food scarcity, water, etc...

steve_taylor 3y ago
Overpopulation is the real inconvenient truth that no one wants to address.
- Clubber 3y ago
  It's not. We can sustain many more, probably 10B+. The problem is everyone wants to live in the same few places. This is mainly driven by economics (workplaces). The WFH revolution will solve a lot of this if it can be sustained. Imagine if you can dig a well, get solar or any type of non-grid energy, and internet. There are no limits to where you can live, and most of the acreage in the US is cheap. You don't need to have millions of people in the same few square miles, at least in the US. We can go back to smaller communities of people more spread out, instead of 5-10 megacities and 50 or so big cities in the US.
  - steve_taylor 3y ago
    Everyone living in megacities is better than urban sprawl, which clears forests and woodlands. More agriculture is required for more people, which means more land clearing. Renewable energy infrastructure needs energy and resources to build and needs to be replaced at EOL. Whether acreage is cheap or not only refers to money, not the environmental cost. And I haven't even said anything about the environmental costs of manufacturing and shipping goods. People won't go back to a "simpler" way of life because it's a backward step in lifestyle. People don't want to sacrifice their lifestyle to do their very small part to help stave off a catastrophe.
    - Clubber 3y ago
      >which clears forests and woodlands. Strictly speaking in the US, it's already cleared. The center of the country, the Great Plains, has almost no trees. Much of the US is pastureland, and you don't have to clearcut a place to live there. >More agriculture is required for more people, which means more land clearing. Which means more efficient agriculture, which we have an abundance of. >Renewable energy infrastructure needs energy and resources to build and needs to be replaced at EOL. I'm talking create your own grid living, not create a renewable grid. >And I haven't even said anything about the environmental costs of manufacturing and shipping goods. Manufacturing cost is already there, but you're right about shipping. We do have extensive railroads and a massive river system already. >People won't go back to a "simpler" way of life because it's a backward step in lifestyle. Some people won't and they can live in cities. Currently, nearly everyone has to live in a city for economic reasons (workplace). Once that stops being a thing, the people that want to move away from a city, and the crime, and the traffic, can do that. >People don't want to sacrifice their lifestyle to do their very small part to help stave off a catastrophe. With all the talk about climate change, I've seen very few people do any type of personal sacrifice to change it.
      - eimrine 3y ago
        > Which means more efficient agriculture, which we have an abundance of. Which means more harm for the land. I am a farmer and salting of the land is a problem for me. > With all the talk about climate change, I've seen very few people do any type of personal sacrifice to change it. If some person earns 100k annually and another 100M - it means they have to do different sacrifices for holding the climate change. My opinion is that progressive taxation might solve the issue (but I afraid that rich people has both some anticipation of progressive taxation idea and some abilities to obstruct the idea).
        Clubber 3y ago
        >Which means more harm for the land. I am a farmer and salting of the land is a problem for me. No it doesn't we're already efficient. We've known how to sustainably farm for generations. Efficiency comes from mechanization and computerization and both of those are already done. We're so efficient the government pays farmers to not grow crops. What do you farm? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_rotation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_rotation >it means they have to do different sacrifices for holding the climate change. That sounds like an excuse to not do anything. This is pretty common. >My opinion is that progressive taxation might solve the issue It won't as long as the government is corrupt. Plus, you have to figure out how to get polluters like China to stop.
    - NemoNobody 3y ago
      It's bc we moved away from nature - to the cities, that we allowed the environmental destruction to occur. Had we all been rural still - and as bored as you get out there, we would've noticed more of the incremental stuff first hand. A sole conversation with your family "outdoorsman" - typically a boomer tho, if so you gotta be real careful they don't realize your asking about climate change or else all you will hear is the stories about that one time in 67 it got this cold before - totally normal. If you can have a candid conversation with someone that has spent a life outside about how different things are today - you will hear lots and lots of things. It's possible that someday all the animals alive left in the world will either be our livestock or as our pets/entertainment. Already today to many people most animals exist only in zoos or on TV. The city removed us from nature physically and conceptually. Plus it's convenient that all that "forest and woodland" you think is "safer" is owned by somebody that wants you to stay in the city. Try to leave the city. Where I live all the same farm families buy every bit of land that is sold as even remotely agricultural - many have accumulated 10-20 "homesteads" - original farms with a house and garage etc... They rip out all of the buildings and plow it down. They used to sell the house and buildings as its own thing - they don't do that anymore. It's not about money. It's about keeping everyone else away - in the cities.
MichaelRo 3y ago
Exactly. One billion people is far more sustainable than 10.
- mertd 3y ago
  Problem is people with heavy carbon footprint are not the people in high population regions. Therefore depopulation might not help the environment all that much.
  - balaji1 3y ago
    such a simple point -- how come no one will accept this? And the rich nations with heavy footprints "wants" the rest of the world to "achieve" the same lifestyle. There are a few big problems - waste management, particularly plastic and other toxic forever chemicals; overuse of toxic chemicals in agri that ends up in the food chain; depletion of soil and water; not enough will to tackle problems sustainably. So a few people can consume more and more -- exacerbated by marketing ads and infinite profit motives.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> House prices, inflation, traffic…food scarcity NIMBYism, combination of bad monetary policy and a supply shock, and bad urban planning. Tokyo has cheaper homes and less traffic than cities with a fraction of the population in America.
- mdorazio 3y ago
  Yes and no. In the US, the vast majority of Americans want to own a single family home, not a condo or apartment [1]. That brings with it the necessity of personal vehicle ownership, which then compounds urban planning and traffic issues. And of course, you can't make more land near cities where people want to live, so you end up in a scarcity situation as the population grows (US population grows by over 1 million per year, whereas Japan's is shrinking - those million+ people have to live somewhere). We can say that American preferences are causing a lot of these issues, but then you have to make the argument that people shouldn't be able to get what they want. [1] https://www.builderonline.com/money/economics/80-percent-of-americans-prefer-single-family-homeownership_o https://www.builderonline.com/money/economics/80-percent-of-...
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > then you have to make the argument that people shouldn't be able to get what they want This is basically acknowledging scarcity exists. There will always be fewer places with large plots near people than people want, irrespective of the number of people.
  - aylmao 3y ago
    > In the US, the vast majority of Americans want to own a single family home, not a condo or apartment IMO there's 2 points to consider regarding this though: One can't underestimate the fact it's illegal to build densely in a lot of the USA [1], so it isn't only preferences driving the market. Even if most people prefer single-family homes, and 50% want them to be "away from it all", there's reason to believe that the population that does want to live densely isn't being met with enough supply, and thus prices are still being artificially increased. In terms of the high preference for low density, there's the unfortunate reality that the density is better in a dense context, but that's not something many people in the USA can experience. In New York, for example, ubiquitous density has meant one can live a convenient life without owning a car. An apartment in LA has all the disadvantages of an apartment, without the advantages of a dense city. That's the perception many people who do experience apartment living might have of it. So overall, low density in the USA isn't purely preference-driven, and there's an argument to believe if more density _were_ built, preferences would change. It's worth keeping in mind. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities...

steve_taylor 3y ago

Overpopulation is the real inconvenient truth that no one wants to address.

Clubber 3y ago
It's not. We can sustain many more, probably 10B+. The problem is everyone wants to live in the same few places. This is mainly driven by economics (workplaces). The WFH revolution will solve a lot of this if it can be sustained. Imagine if you can dig a well, get solar or any type of non-grid energy, and internet. There are no limits to where you can live, and most of the acreage in the US is cheap. You don't need to have millions of people in the same few square miles, at least in the US. We can go back to smaller communities of people more spread out, instead of 5-10 megacities and 50 or so big cities in the US.
- steve_taylor 3y ago
  Everyone living in megacities is better than urban sprawl, which clears forests and woodlands. More agriculture is required for more people, which means more land clearing. Renewable energy infrastructure needs energy and resources to build and needs to be replaced at EOL. Whether acreage is cheap or not only refers to money, not the environmental cost. And I haven't even said anything about the environmental costs of manufacturing and shipping goods. People won't go back to a "simpler" way of life because it's a backward step in lifestyle. People don't want to sacrifice their lifestyle to do their very small part to help stave off a catastrophe.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >which clears forests and woodlands. Strictly speaking in the US, it's already cleared. The center of the country, the Great Plains, has almost no trees. Much of the US is pastureland, and you don't have to clearcut a place to live there. >More agriculture is required for more people, which means more land clearing. Which means more efficient agriculture, which we have an abundance of. >Renewable energy infrastructure needs energy and resources to build and needs to be replaced at EOL. I'm talking create your own grid living, not create a renewable grid. >And I haven't even said anything about the environmental costs of manufacturing and shipping goods. Manufacturing cost is already there, but you're right about shipping. We do have extensive railroads and a massive river system already. >People won't go back to a "simpler" way of life because it's a backward step in lifestyle. Some people won't and they can live in cities. Currently, nearly everyone has to live in a city for economic reasons (workplace). Once that stops being a thing, the people that want to move away from a city, and the crime, and the traffic, can do that. >People don't want to sacrifice their lifestyle to do their very small part to help stave off a catastrophe. With all the talk about climate change, I've seen very few people do any type of personal sacrifice to change it.
    - eimrine 3y ago
      > Which means more efficient agriculture, which we have an abundance of. Which means more harm for the land. I am a farmer and salting of the land is a problem for me. > With all the talk about climate change, I've seen very few people do any type of personal sacrifice to change it. If some person earns 100k annually and another 100M - it means they have to do different sacrifices for holding the climate change. My opinion is that progressive taxation might solve the issue (but I afraid that rich people has both some anticipation of progressive taxation idea and some abilities to obstruct the idea).
      - Clubber 3y ago
        >Which means more harm for the land. I am a farmer and salting of the land is a problem for me. No it doesn't we're already efficient. We've known how to sustainably farm for generations. Efficiency comes from mechanization and computerization and both of those are already done. We're so efficient the government pays farmers to not grow crops. What do you farm? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_rotation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_rotation >it means they have to do different sacrifices for holding the climate change. That sounds like an excuse to not do anything. This is pretty common. >My opinion is that progressive taxation might solve the issue It won't as long as the government is corrupt. Plus, you have to figure out how to get polluters like China to stop.
  - NemoNobody 3y ago
    It's bc we moved away from nature - to the cities, that we allowed the environmental destruction to occur. Had we all been rural still - and as bored as you get out there, we would've noticed more of the incremental stuff first hand. A sole conversation with your family "outdoorsman" - typically a boomer tho, if so you gotta be real careful they don't realize your asking about climate change or else all you will hear is the stories about that one time in 67 it got this cold before - totally normal. If you can have a candid conversation with someone that has spent a life outside about how different things are today - you will hear lots and lots of things. It's possible that someday all the animals alive left in the world will either be our livestock or as our pets/entertainment. Already today to many people most animals exist only in zoos or on TV. The city removed us from nature physically and conceptually. Plus it's convenient that all that "forest and woodland" you think is "safer" is owned by somebody that wants you to stay in the city. Try to leave the city. Where I live all the same farm families buy every bit of land that is sold as even remotely agricultural - many have accumulated 10-20 "homesteads" - original farms with a house and garage etc... They rip out all of the buildings and plow it down. They used to sell the house and buildings as its own thing - they don't do that anymore. It's not about money. It's about keeping everyone else away - in the cities.

MichaelRo 3y ago

Exactly. One billion people is far more sustainable than 10.

mertd 3y ago
Problem is people with heavy carbon footprint are not the people in high population regions. Therefore depopulation might not help the environment all that much.
- balaji1 3y ago
  such a simple point -- how come no one will accept this? And the rich nations with heavy footprints "wants" the rest of the world to "achieve" the same lifestyle. There are a few big problems - waste management, particularly plastic and other toxic forever chemicals; overuse of toxic chemicals in agri that ends up in the food chain; depletion of soil and water; not enough will to tackle problems sustainably. So a few people can consume more and more -- exacerbated by marketing ads and infinite profit motives.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> House prices, inflation, traffic…food scarcity NIMBYism, combination of bad monetary policy and a supply shock, and bad urban planning. Tokyo has cheaper homes and less traffic than cities with a fraction of the population in America.

mdorazio 3y ago
Yes and no. In the US, the vast majority of Americans want to own a single family home, not a condo or apartment [1]. That brings with it the necessity of personal vehicle ownership, which then compounds urban planning and traffic issues. And of course, you can't make more land near cities where people want to live, so you end up in a scarcity situation as the population grows (US population grows by over 1 million per year, whereas Japan's is shrinking - those million+ people have to live somewhere). We can say that American preferences are causing a lot of these issues, but then you have to make the argument that people shouldn't be able to get what they want. [1] https://www.builderonline.com/money/economics/80-percent-of-americans-prefer-single-family-homeownership_o https://www.builderonline.com/money/economics/80-percent-of-...
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > then you have to make the argument that people shouldn't be able to get what they want This is basically acknowledging scarcity exists. There will always be fewer places with large plots near people than people want, irrespective of the number of people.
- aylmao 3y ago
  > In the US, the vast majority of Americans want to own a single family home, not a condo or apartment IMO there's 2 points to consider regarding this though: One can't underestimate the fact it's illegal to build densely in a lot of the USA [1], so it isn't only preferences driving the market. Even if most people prefer single-family homes, and 50% want them to be "away from it all", there's reason to believe that the population that does want to live densely isn't being met with enough supply, and thus prices are still being artificially increased. In terms of the high preference for low density, there's the unfortunate reality that the density is better in a dense context, but that's not something many people in the USA can experience. In New York, for example, ubiquitous density has meant one can live a convenient life without owning a car. An apartment in LA has all the disadvantages of an apartment, without the advantages of a dense city. That's the perception many people who do experience apartment living might have of it. So overall, low density in the USA isn't purely preference-driven, and there's an argument to believe if more density _were_ built, preferences would change. It's worth keeping in mind. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities...