4 ms·

The problem is not the number of people, it is the amount of externalities. What has to happen is a reduction in absolute pollution - that can happen either by

The problem is not the number of people, it is the amount of externalities. What has to happen is a reduction in absolute pollution - that can happen either by lowering the number of people (read: genocide) or by reducing the pollution per person. The latter is possible and sustainable. The former is very stupid, because even a "clean" Thanos-style genocide would have essentially no effect; populations would rise again and since we did nothing to solve the problem (pollution-per-person), we'd be back in the same place within a generation or two.

acdanger 3y ago
How can lowering the population == genocide ? Surely, there are many other ways of decreasing the number of the planet other than extermination.
- digging 3y ago
  Within a few decades? I'm listening if you have any ideas.
  - Reubend 3y ago
    Providing better medical care and birth control? Educating the population on family planning? Making the cost of raising children more expensive, in order to create economic incentives to have fewer children? Lots of possibilities out there!
    - digging 3y ago
      > Providing better medical care Do we limit that to the young, or how else do you actually reduce the population in a meaningful way rapidly?
forgetfreeman 3y ago
"The problem is not the number of people" Bullshit. None (not one) of the systems/industries we have in place to support our current population operates at anything even close to sustainable. CLothes, food, shelter, whatever, if it's on tier 1 of Maslow's hierarchy the shit we do to service it has overwhelmed or is in the process of overwhelming available global natural resources (renewable and otherwise), with no obvious path to sustainability. It's trivially agreed upon that there are natural carry limits for every other species on the planet. The notion that this also applies to our species shouldn't be controversial, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that that carry limit has been exceeded.
- oivey 3y ago
  Other species don’t build technology. Technology changes the carrying capacity. Humans also have environmental impact that varies far more than animals. A bird in Africa and a bird in America probably have similar environmental impact, but a person in Africa uses far fewer resources than a person in America. Your position should be controversial because it is incorrect. The ecosystem dynamics of humans are nothing like that of other animals.
  - forgetfreeman 3y ago
    You're right. Birds haven't managed to cause a global mass extinction event. Meanwhile the technology you're touting has permitted our species to very nearly eradicate every marine fishery on the planet, fuck up CO2 levels badly enough to alter the climate globally, pump more water out of aquifers than can be recharged through natural processes, and has driven unrecoverable topsoil loss globally in all major agricultural areas. Your claim that carry capacity has been altered significantly doesn't mesh well with the facts on the ground. Available evidence suggests all we're really accomplishing is a temporary increase in humans on the planet in exchange for a bricked ecosystem. That ain't carry.
    - Baeocystin 3y ago
      A small freshwater fern bricked the Earth's climate for a while: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event It is possible that the evolution of a fungus that could degrade lignin is what brought about the end of the Carboniferous, with an associated extinction event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous#Fungi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous#Fungi And, of course, probably the biggest one of the all, the Great Oxidation Event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event // None of this is to downplay humanity's role in our current climate catastrophe. But we are the first of a long line of organisms that have the ability to do something about it, which is not nothing.
      - forgetfreeman 3y ago
einpoklum 3y ago
Many countries in the world have transitioned from positive population growth to near-zero or negative population growth, with no genocide. So you're presenting a straw-man (straw-Marvel-villain?) argument about population reduction. It is indeed possible and sustainable to stop population growth. The thing is, Capitalist economies in most countries are fueled by the pursuit of "growth" - not of population, but of profits/future-profit-streams. When capital has less possibilities for growth by expansion to new people (or, still today, new markets developing) - there is a tendency to for exploitation to deepen. So the lack of the "safety valve" will make existing social arrangements more tense, or even worse, on average. Of course - that's an issue even without getting to zero-growth, as new markets in developing countries are gradually running out. (Haven't talked about controlled population reduction, to not run on too much in this comment.)

acdanger 3y ago

How can lowering the population == genocide ? Surely, there are many other ways of decreasing the number of the planet other than extermination.

digging 3y ago
Within a few decades? I'm listening if you have any ideas.
- Reubend 3y ago
  Providing better medical care and birth control? Educating the population on family planning? Making the cost of raising children more expensive, in order to create economic incentives to have fewer children? Lots of possibilities out there!
  - digging 3y ago
    > Providing better medical care Do we limit that to the young, or how else do you actually reduce the population in a meaningful way rapidly?

forgetfreeman 3y ago

"The problem is not the number of people" Bullshit. None (not one) of the systems/industries we have in place to support our current population operates at anything even close to sustainable. CLothes, food, shelter, whatever, if it's on tier 1 of Maslow's hierarchy the shit we do to service it has overwhelmed or is in the process of overwhelming available global natural resources (renewable and otherwise), with no obvious path to sustainability. It's trivially agreed upon that there are natural carry limits for every other species on the planet. The notion that this also applies to our species shouldn't be controversial, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that that carry limit has been exceeded.

oivey 3y ago
Other species don’t build technology. Technology changes the carrying capacity. Humans also have environmental impact that varies far more than animals. A bird in Africa and a bird in America probably have similar environmental impact, but a person in Africa uses far fewer resources than a person in America. Your position should be controversial because it is incorrect. The ecosystem dynamics of humans are nothing like that of other animals.
- forgetfreeman 3y ago
  You're right. Birds haven't managed to cause a global mass extinction event. Meanwhile the technology you're touting has permitted our species to very nearly eradicate every marine fishery on the planet, fuck up CO2 levels badly enough to alter the climate globally, pump more water out of aquifers than can be recharged through natural processes, and has driven unrecoverable topsoil loss globally in all major agricultural areas. Your claim that carry capacity has been altered significantly doesn't mesh well with the facts on the ground. Available evidence suggests all we're really accomplishing is a temporary increase in humans on the planet in exchange for a bricked ecosystem. That ain't carry.
  - Baeocystin 3y ago
    A small freshwater fern bricked the Earth's climate for a while: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event It is possible that the evolution of a fungus that could degrade lignin is what brought about the end of the Carboniferous, with an associated extinction event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous#Fungi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous#Fungi And, of course, probably the biggest one of the all, the Great Oxidation Event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event // None of this is to downplay humanity's role in our current climate catastrophe. But we are the first of a long line of organisms that have the ability to do something about it, which is not nothing.
    - forgetfreeman 3y ago

einpoklum 3y ago

Many countries in the world have transitioned from positive population growth to near-zero or negative population growth, with no genocide. So you're presenting a straw-man (straw-Marvel-villain?) argument about population reduction. It is indeed possible and sustainable to stop population growth. The thing is, Capitalist economies in most countries are fueled by the pursuit of "growth" - not of population, but of profits/future-profit-streams. When capital has less possibilities for growth by expansion to new people (or, still today, new markets developing) - there is a tendency to for exploitation to deepen. So the lack of the "safety valve" will make existing social arrangements more tense, or even worse, on average. Of course - that's an issue even without getting to zero-growth, as new markets in developing countries are gradually running out. (Haven't talked about controlled population reduction, to not run on too much in this comment.)