6 ms·

The 2 most prominent proponents of this idea happen to have the resources (money) that will allow them to avoid most of the downsides a larger population would

The 2 most prominent proponents of this idea happen to have the resources (money) that will allow them to avoid most of the downsides a larger population would create. Great for them bad for me. There are plenty enough geniuses in existence today. They cannot be utilized because they live in shitty conditions created by the too large population we already have. As others have pointed out consideration of of negative effects are totally absent. Will technology allow us to sustain larger populations - likely but at what cost.

synecdoche 3y ago
How about providing concrete methods for reducing population? Exactly how do you propose to reduce population and who should be forced to not have children first? Should we assume that you will lead by example?
- ant6n 3y ago
  Rich people voluntarily have fewer kids. Spread the wealth, reduce the population pressure.
  - 0thgen 3y ago
    though I heard the data on this is starting to shift
  - lo_zamoyski 3y ago
    Not rich people, but people in consumerist societies. Consumerism as a way of life is hostile to having children. Consumerism construes all of life, and the purpose of life, as consumption and in hedonistic terms. It means that sexual intercourse and sexual relationships are perversely construed in terms of consumption. A sign of this is the 20th century normalization of contraception, where the intrinsically procreative end of sexual intercourse is intentionally and explicitly blocked and frustrated in order to center pleasure (the irony of hedonism is that it actually makes sex less enjoyable, as pleasure sought for its own sake undermines itself, but I digress). In a healthy sexual relationship, children are a welcome result of sexual union. In a consumerist relationship, they are an impediment to hedonistic consumerist indulgence, so much so that abortion is sought when contraception fails. Even the notion of lifelong marriage stands in the way of the consumerist juggernaut, as commitment to one's spouse means denying yourself countless, admittedly shallow and selfish sexual encounters. Consumerism is an agent of social and individual decay. Furthermore, children cost money. The money you could spend on consumption, on that new Mercedes, may need to go toward the good of a child, which, according to a consumerist calculus, is lost. And how can you keep up with the Jones' when the measure of wealth aren't children, but more stuff? The poor may have had more children in consumerist societies, because various luxuries are out of their reach anyway, so the dilemma doesn't manifest as much. Also, the fish tends to rot from the head down, so it takes a while for the habits of those further up the economic ladder to trickle down. Of course, not everyone must have children, but healthy societies do tend to have many. If it were simply the case of the former, we would not see the hostility we see toward the latter.
- dave4420 3y ago
  The global population is projected to go down to 6 billion by the end of the century, without any coercion or policy changes. This drives people like the author of the article mad, because they think we should do something to prevent that.
  - lukas099 3y ago
    > The global population is projected to go down to 6 billion by the end of the century Source? I thought it was expected to stabilize around 10B or so
    - pixl97 3y ago
      Source UN Population to 2300 https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/files/documents/2020/Jan/un_2002_world_population_to_2300.pdf https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.deve... Now the issue is both OP and you are taking one of the trend lines rather than looking at the projection spread. Ops seems slightly off as the UN numbers are showing 10B max and 7.4B min.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - lukas099 3y ago
        You're looking at the graph that ends in 2050. Estimates for 2100 (from Fig. 6) ================================ - High: 14.0B - Med: 9.1B - Low: 5.5B
  - synecdoche 3y ago
    > The global population is projected to go down to 6 billion by the end of the century, without any coercion or policy changes. I agree. So where is the problem? Replacement is a problem in many parts of the world on the other hand.
    - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
- pseudocomposer 3y ago
  Why should anyone be forced not to have kids? We could all have one and the population would halve in a generation.
  - dotancohen 3y ago
    I have three children, not unusual for my culture. My community's gardener has 14 children, low for his culture but he's still young. He's only on his second wife and he just passed 40 years old. Are you going to tell him that he needs to change his culture? Arguably he could have a lot to say about our culture spewing out hydrocarbons being damaging to the planet, which would be justified far before we criticise his reproduction.
    - zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
      Yes, he should change his culture. We should too. Why is it taboo to tell people that their cultural values are wrong?
      - dotancohen 3y ago
        If you ever find the answer then let me know.
      - lo_zamoyski 3y ago
        I have no problem telling someone their culture is wrong. In this case, it is ours that is wrong.
        zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
        No
    - jhardy54 3y ago
      > Arguably he could have a lot to say about our culture spewing out hydrocarbons being damaging to the planet […] Good?
    - 3y ago
- michaelt 3y ago
  Rich countries have sub-replacement rates of fertility already. All we have to do is embrace it.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  There are a lot of ways to contribute to society without contributing a person, but many parts of our culture consider these ways to be somehow secondary. If we can change this, we can reduce our population without forbidding anyone from having children. For starters, I think we should increase tax benefits for people who don't have dependents and who are participating in research, or teaching, or nurshing, or ... create a list of activities which we want to see more of but that the market does not prioritize. Let's celebrate, and empower, individuals who take the time they would be spending on their own kids, and instead spend it on solving society's problems. This would increase the likelihood that somebody without children has the kind of impact which makes them a role model for existing children. This will help erode the idea that people who chose not to have children are somehow defective and will decrease the likelihood that a person decides to have kids.
- strangattractor 3y ago
  I think it has been demonstrated multiple times in various places that empowerment of women and access to birth control ultimately stabilizes population growth. [1] There is no need to have a program or have governments decide who and how. People naturally do it on their own given the means. [1] https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/Empowerment.pdf https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_...
matwood 3y ago
> They cannot be utilized because they live in shitty conditions created by the too large population we already have. Or they just live in a shitty place under some autocratic/dictator/religious rule. I'm not sure that has much to do with the population size.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  Don't you think those bad leaders would've had a harder time coming into power if there had been less contention over resources? If it's clear that there's plenty to go around you can just abandon a bad leader. If not, then maybe tolerating them is a necessary evil (because they control the food).
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >Don't you think those bad leaders would've had a harder time coming into power if there had been less contention over resources? No. For most of human history we've been lead by shitty autocratic leaders. Now, when there's too little to go around we're more apt to go to war and/or have population migrations which is a different subject.
  - matwood 3y ago
    We have an abundance of resources, and ship things like food and medicine all over the world. But because of shitty leaders access is the issue. So the only way to address the issue is to get more resources sourced locally. > If it's clear that there's plenty to go around you can just abandon a bad leader. If only it were that easy.
    - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
      > the only way to address the issue is to get more resources sourced locally. I don't know about "only", but I agree that that's the best move: Fewer labyrinthine dependencies, more providing directly for yourself and your neighbors. But isn't the difficulty of that proposition a direct function of population density? If "locally" means 1000 people on 100 acres, that's a lot different than if "locally" means 10000 people on 10 acres. --- To put it differently, premises: 1. The planet can sustain 100M of us 2. The planet cannot sustain 100B of us 3. There is uncertainty about whether the planet can sustain 8B of us Conclusion: The safer direction for our population to go is down.
SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
> There are plenty enough geniuses in existence today. They cannot be utilized because they live in shitty conditions created by the too large population we already have I’m pretty sure that the shitty conditions are not caused by a too large population of humans more broadly. If society took the wealth of a few billionaires and distributed it to the most impoverished I think a lot of our overpopulation woes would vanish overnight. Things like tuberculosis medicine costing hundreds of dollars isn’t a population problem.
- yetihehe 3y ago
  > If society took the wealth of a few billionaires and distributed it to the most impoverished I think a lot of our overpopulation woes would vanish overnight. Maybe, maybe not. Most of impoverished people I know are impoverished because they continue to act irresponsibly with money. Just giving them money without education, handholding and a lot of coaching about how to spend money will mean that money will be distrobuted back away into society and eventually the rich will return to being rich. Of course not everyone is like that, but I'd say 80%. By just redistributing wealth, after 5 years we would reduce amount of poor people by 20%. That's why it's so hard to fight poorness. They require a lot more than just money.
- strangattractor 3y ago
  People always look for the one size fits all solutions and or reasons for problems. There are multiple reasons for shitty conditions just as there are multiple reasons for homelessness. That is why these problems seem so intractable IMHO. I seriously doubt cramming another billion or so people onto the planet is going to improve those conditions. At least I have not read a convincing argument for it. I think people totally underestimate how the current 9 Billion inhabitants of this planet are depleting our oceans of living things and how large a percentage of those inhabitants depend upon the ocean for food. Sounds like one of those externalities Economist only account for after the fact. Ooops - To bad for you starving children in (put your starving country here).

synecdoche 3y ago

How about providing concrete methods for reducing population? Exactly how do you propose to reduce population and who should be forced to not have children first? Should we assume that you will lead by example?

ant6n 3y ago
Rich people voluntarily have fewer kids. Spread the wealth, reduce the population pressure.
- 0thgen 3y ago
  though I heard the data on this is starting to shift
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  Not rich people, but people in consumerist societies. Consumerism as a way of life is hostile to having children. Consumerism construes all of life, and the purpose of life, as consumption and in hedonistic terms. It means that sexual intercourse and sexual relationships are perversely construed in terms of consumption. A sign of this is the 20th century normalization of contraception, where the intrinsically procreative end of sexual intercourse is intentionally and explicitly blocked and frustrated in order to center pleasure (the irony of hedonism is that it actually makes sex less enjoyable, as pleasure sought for its own sake undermines itself, but I digress). In a healthy sexual relationship, children are a welcome result of sexual union. In a consumerist relationship, they are an impediment to hedonistic consumerist indulgence, so much so that abortion is sought when contraception fails. Even the notion of lifelong marriage stands in the way of the consumerist juggernaut, as commitment to one's spouse means denying yourself countless, admittedly shallow and selfish sexual encounters. Consumerism is an agent of social and individual decay. Furthermore, children cost money. The money you could spend on consumption, on that new Mercedes, may need to go toward the good of a child, which, according to a consumerist calculus, is lost. And how can you keep up with the Jones' when the measure of wealth aren't children, but more stuff? The poor may have had more children in consumerist societies, because various luxuries are out of their reach anyway, so the dilemma doesn't manifest as much. Also, the fish tends to rot from the head down, so it takes a while for the habits of those further up the economic ladder to trickle down. Of course, not everyone must have children, but healthy societies do tend to have many. If it were simply the case of the former, we would not see the hostility we see toward the latter.
dave4420 3y ago
The global population is projected to go down to 6 billion by the end of the century, without any coercion or policy changes. This drives people like the author of the article mad, because they think we should do something to prevent that.
- lukas099 3y ago
  > The global population is projected to go down to 6 billion by the end of the century Source? I thought it was expected to stabilize around 10B or so
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Source UN Population to 2300 https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/files/documents/2020/Jan/un_2002_world_population_to_2300.pdf https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.deve... Now the issue is both OP and you are taking one of the trend lines rather than looking at the projection spread. Ops seems slightly off as the UN numbers are showing 10B max and 7.4B min.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - lukas099 3y ago
      You're looking at the graph that ends in 2050. Estimates for 2100 (from Fig. 6) ================================ - High: 14.0B - Med: 9.1B - Low: 5.5B
- synecdoche 3y ago
  > The global population is projected to go down to 6 billion by the end of the century, without any coercion or policy changes. I agree. So where is the problem? Replacement is a problem in many parts of the world on the other hand.
  - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
pseudocomposer 3y ago
Why should anyone be forced not to have kids? We could all have one and the population would halve in a generation.
- dotancohen 3y ago
  I have three children, not unusual for my culture. My community's gardener has 14 children, low for his culture but he's still young. He's only on his second wife and he just passed 40 years old. Are you going to tell him that he needs to change his culture? Arguably he could have a lot to say about our culture spewing out hydrocarbons being damaging to the planet, which would be justified far before we criticise his reproduction.
  - zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
    Yes, he should change his culture. We should too. Why is it taboo to tell people that their cultural values are wrong?
    - dotancohen 3y ago
      If you ever find the answer then let me know.
    - lo_zamoyski 3y ago
      I have no problem telling someone their culture is wrong. In this case, it is ours that is wrong.
      - zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
        No
  - jhardy54 3y ago
    > Arguably he could have a lot to say about our culture spewing out hydrocarbons being damaging to the planet […] Good?
  - 3y ago
michaelt 3y ago
Rich countries have sub-replacement rates of fertility already. All we have to do is embrace it.
__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
There are a lot of ways to contribute to society without contributing a person, but many parts of our culture consider these ways to be somehow secondary. If we can change this, we can reduce our population without forbidding anyone from having children. For starters, I think we should increase tax benefits for people who don't have dependents and who are participating in research, or teaching, or nurshing, or ... create a list of activities which we want to see more of but that the market does not prioritize. Let's celebrate, and empower, individuals who take the time they would be spending on their own kids, and instead spend it on solving society's problems. This would increase the likelihood that somebody without children has the kind of impact which makes them a role model for existing children. This will help erode the idea that people who chose not to have children are somehow defective and will decrease the likelihood that a person decides to have kids.
strangattractor 3y ago
I think it has been demonstrated multiple times in various places that empowerment of women and access to birth control ultimately stabilizes population growth. [1] There is no need to have a program or have governments decide who and how. People naturally do it on their own given the means. [1] https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/Empowerment.pdf https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_...

matwood 3y ago

> They cannot be utilized because they live in shitty conditions created by the too large population we already have. Or they just live in a shitty place under some autocratic/dictator/religious rule. I'm not sure that has much to do with the population size.

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
Don't you think those bad leaders would've had a harder time coming into power if there had been less contention over resources? If it's clear that there's plenty to go around you can just abandon a bad leader. If not, then maybe tolerating them is a necessary evil (because they control the food).
- pixl97 3y ago
  >Don't you think those bad leaders would've had a harder time coming into power if there had been less contention over resources? No. For most of human history we've been lead by shitty autocratic leaders. Now, when there's too little to go around we're more apt to go to war and/or have population migrations which is a different subject.
- matwood 3y ago
  We have an abundance of resources, and ship things like food and medicine all over the world. But because of shitty leaders access is the issue. So the only way to address the issue is to get more resources sourced locally. > If it's clear that there's plenty to go around you can just abandon a bad leader. If only it were that easy.
  - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
    > the only way to address the issue is to get more resources sourced locally. I don't know about "only", but I agree that that's the best move: Fewer labyrinthine dependencies, more providing directly for yourself and your neighbors. But isn't the difficulty of that proposition a direct function of population density? If "locally" means 1000 people on 100 acres, that's a lot different than if "locally" means 10000 people on 10 acres. --- To put it differently, premises: 1. The planet can sustain 100M of us 2. The planet cannot sustain 100B of us 3. There is uncertainty about whether the planet can sustain 8B of us Conclusion: The safer direction for our population to go is down.

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago

> There are plenty enough geniuses in existence today. They cannot be utilized because they live in shitty conditions created by the too large population we already have I’m pretty sure that the shitty conditions are not caused by a too large population of humans more broadly. If society took the wealth of a few billionaires and distributed it to the most impoverished I think a lot of our overpopulation woes would vanish overnight. Things like tuberculosis medicine costing hundreds of dollars isn’t a population problem.

yetihehe 3y ago
> If society took the wealth of a few billionaires and distributed it to the most impoverished I think a lot of our overpopulation woes would vanish overnight. Maybe, maybe not. Most of impoverished people I know are impoverished because they continue to act irresponsibly with money. Just giving them money without education, handholding and a lot of coaching about how to spend money will mean that money will be distrobuted back away into society and eventually the rich will return to being rich. Of course not everyone is like that, but I'd say 80%. By just redistributing wealth, after 5 years we would reduce amount of poor people by 20%. That's why it's so hard to fight poorness. They require a lot more than just money.
strangattractor 3y ago
People always look for the one size fits all solutions and or reasons for problems. There are multiple reasons for shitty conditions just as there are multiple reasons for homelessness. That is why these problems seem so intractable IMHO. I seriously doubt cramming another billion or so people onto the planet is going to improve those conditions. At least I have not read a convincing argument for it. I think people totally underestimate how the current 9 Billion inhabitants of this planet are depleting our oceans of living things and how large a percentage of those inhabitants depend upon the ocean for food. Sounds like one of those externalities Economist only account for after the fact. Ooops - To bad for you starving children in (put your starving country here).