6 ms·

Funny how everyone is obsessed with "sustainability" nowadays but you get frowned upon for mentioning unsustainable birth rates. I honestly don't understand wha

Funny how everyone is obsessed with "sustainability" nowadays but you get frowned upon for mentioning unsustainable birth rates. I honestly don't understand what's the point of having sustainable energy and water sources in a society that fades away.

bparsons 2y ago
What population would be too much for earth? 15 billion? 100 billion? Never understood the unlimited growth argument. We aren't going to colonize Mars.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  What part of his comment implied "unlimited growth"?
- credit_guy 2y ago
  Conversely, what population do you think would be appropriate? 5 billion, 1 billion, 100 million?
- Longlius 2y ago
  This isn't talking about 'unlimited growth.' It's talking about sustaining our current population structure or even tapering it off gracefully rather than facing the steep decline we're dealing with now.
  - bparsons 2y ago
    Global population is not declining. It is projected to continue growing for at least another few decades.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Depends entirely on the tech. If all you have is bronze, about 10 million. If we mass produced greenhouses and tile the deserts etc., I've heard a trillion claimed as possible.
- Lammy 2y ago
  “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”
- snapplebobapple 2y ago
  Not with an attitude like that we aren't. I always preferred oneill cylinders anyway. They seem much more doable and they avoid the pesky gravity well problem and the enormous energy requirement to climb out of it.
Attrecomet 2y ago
By "unsustainable growth rates" you mean an ever-expanding population on a planet that cannot realistically offer up the resources for this population to live in moderate wealth, right?
- pfdietz 2y ago
  He obviously didn't mean "ever expanding". And current population can be sustainably supported, if we get off fossil fuels.
  - Attrecomet 2y ago
    Pro-natalism however does not care about sustainable world population (the relevant metric for resources in a globalized world), but "grow as fast as you can to outcompete the brown or Muslim people", as many pronatalists comments here remind us -- all the "societies that don't breed quickly are all conquered" comments.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      So, ignore what he actually said, and replace it with something of your own imagining? I don't think you're approaching this conversation honestly.
      - Attrecomet 2y ago
        No, you are misreading what I'm saying. GP clearly means the current birth rate when talking about "unsustainable birth rates". I am pointing out that the pronatalist position is the actually unsustainable one. It's not hard to understand, really: we do not have the resources on this planet to give everyone an acceptable standard of living, let alone a US one. Any effort to reduce the resource usage via sustainability measures will be completely eaten up if we insist on increasing the human population of this planet. That is quite unsustainable -- far more so than a country having a birth rate under replacement for a while.
        2y ago
candiddevmike 2y ago
Because right now sustainability is a farce used to assuage the masses while the rich prepare for the cataclysmic on Hawaii and New Zealand.
katzinsky 2y ago
[flagged]
ben_w 2y ago
Any birth rate significantly different from replacement levels is unsustainable on the timescale of centuries, regardless of if it's above or below replacement. 2.4 children per woman is 8.9-fold growth after 300 years of 25 years between generations. 1.6 children per woman is a reduction to 6.9% of your initial population in the same way. (Also, sustainability is a function of tech: the 1930s way of life was not long-term sustainable at any recorded population level).
- soco 2y ago
  The problems we need addressing could be happening in decades (some are manifesting already) so the rates of today do not have to be the ones in 50 years. I would rather focus on the closer dangers, than on what might happen in centuries... we are already over 8 billions, why would I worry if in centuries we are a billion less? Humanity will be still around and that looks to me like the only important gain.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    The environmental problems we have today already have solutions in the lab, it's just about making them economical and scaling them up. > why would I worry if in centuries we are a billion less? Indeed, this is my position too. Hyperbolic discounting of the future: we don't know what's coming, let the future sort itself out and worry about the next 5 years. 25 years, we might get AI good enough for robot workforce and we can all retire instantly with no need for more kids entering the workforce to replace the pensioners, might get anti-aging and an end to old-age pensions, might get both, might get neither. (That said, the example I gave was a reduction to, not by, 6.9%; it would be a global population of 552 million).
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      > The environmental problems we have today already have solutions in the lab, it's just about making them economical and scaling them up. 'just' is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Lead is still in certain common fuels, some paints, and foods to this day.
wvoch235 2y ago
Can we agree: Claim 1: A “sustainable birth rate” is bounded by the efficiency of resource extraction and the repair rate of the environment for the damage the extraction does to it. Claim 2: It would appear that technology has accelerated so far very closely at the same rate as global population growth. Claim 3: Our efficiency of resource extraction has sky rocketed. Claim 4: Our damage to the environment has exceeded its repair rate as this has increased. Claim 5: A collapsed society would not immediately loose all of its population, and would likely be the most damaging to the environment in the shortest period of time. We won’t forget how to burn oil, but we won’t be using high efficiency well maintained engines when we do it. With that. Seems like there are two options before humanity: 1. Burn it all down, reduce population growth rate (doesn’t matter if it’s controlled [Mao] or uncontrolled [The West Today]), eventually loose genetic entropy, and before that loose (or automate and replace) the labor force that allowed for the resource extraction. The outcomes here are: a) Society collapses (genetic entropy, climate change damage that has already been done, destabilization caused by population reduction measures, etc) b) We automate labor and humans either are replaced entirely c) or a small oligarchy of humans exist to rule that automation. That population must keep genetic entropy through gene editing (requires a lot of novel advancement which is harder with fewer people, unless we’re curating) - or - 2. Address the reasons why people aren’t having kids in the west to maintain labor and genetic entropy, which mainly has to do with economic opportunity of young adults. And ensure that our resource extraction continues more efficient and that we either develop ways to limit damage or ways to accelerate the repair. Outcomes are: A) We fail to accelerate repair or reduce damage, and society collapses B) We succeed and we’ve managed not to damage genetic entropy and don’t risk a conflict over population control. The problem with option 1 is the implementation won’t be uniform, and population reduction globally cannot be achieved without some type of concerted effort. Consider for a moment how that is supposed to be implemented. If things go wrong in that effort, that leads to conflict. It seems very likely that society collapses as well. The other issue is considering the population number as the solution is it is a very short jump to the justification of genocide or some other form or population reduction. That also seems like it would accelerate conflict and therefore society collapse. The problem with option 2 is there is only so much time before our damage exceeds allowable levels.
xnx 2y ago
> in a society that fades away. I struggle to understand why continuation of society in a particular way is important to someone hundreds or thousands of years after their death.
- alexey-salmin 2y ago
  Well the goal of sustainability is the continuation of society in a particular way. By itself it can be important or unimportant, my problem is with people who somehow have it both ways.
johnea 2y ago
Humans are NOT an endangered species...

bparsons 2y ago

What population would be too much for earth? 15 billion? 100 billion? Never understood the unlimited growth argument. We aren't going to colonize Mars.

pfdietz 2y ago
What part of his comment implied "unlimited growth"?
credit_guy 2y ago
Conversely, what population do you think would be appropriate? 5 billion, 1 billion, 100 million?
Longlius 2y ago
This isn't talking about 'unlimited growth.' It's talking about sustaining our current population structure or even tapering it off gracefully rather than facing the steep decline we're dealing with now.
- bparsons 2y ago
  Global population is not declining. It is projected to continue growing for at least another few decades.
ben_w 2y ago
Depends entirely on the tech. If all you have is bronze, about 10 million. If we mass produced greenhouses and tile the deserts etc., I've heard a trillion claimed as possible.
Lammy 2y ago
“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”
snapplebobapple 2y ago
Not with an attitude like that we aren't. I always preferred oneill cylinders anyway. They seem much more doable and they avoid the pesky gravity well problem and the enormous energy requirement to climb out of it.

Attrecomet 2y ago

By "unsustainable growth rates" you mean an ever-expanding population on a planet that cannot realistically offer up the resources for this population to live in moderate wealth, right?

pfdietz 2y ago
He obviously didn't mean "ever expanding". And current population can be sustainably supported, if we get off fossil fuels.
- Attrecomet 2y ago
  Pro-natalism however does not care about sustainable world population (the relevant metric for resources in a globalized world), but "grow as fast as you can to outcompete the brown or Muslim people", as many pronatalists comments here remind us -- all the "societies that don't breed quickly are all conquered" comments.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    So, ignore what he actually said, and replace it with something of your own imagining? I don't think you're approaching this conversation honestly.
    - Attrecomet 2y ago
      No, you are misreading what I'm saying. GP clearly means the current birth rate when talking about "unsustainable birth rates". I am pointing out that the pronatalist position is the actually unsustainable one. It's not hard to understand, really: we do not have the resources on this planet to give everyone an acceptable standard of living, let alone a US one. Any effort to reduce the resource usage via sustainability measures will be completely eaten up if we insist on increasing the human population of this planet. That is quite unsustainable -- far more so than a country having a birth rate under replacement for a while.
      - 2y ago

candiddevmike 2y ago

Because right now sustainability is a farce used to assuage the masses while the rich prepare for the cataclysmic on Hawaii and New Zealand.

katzinsky 2y ago

[flagged]

ben_w 2y ago

Any birth rate significantly different from replacement levels is unsustainable on the timescale of centuries, regardless of if it's above or below replacement. 2.4 children per woman is 8.9-fold growth after 300 years of 25 years between generations. 1.6 children per woman is a reduction to 6.9% of your initial population in the same way. (Also, sustainability is a function of tech: the 1930s way of life was not long-term sustainable at any recorded population level).

soco 2y ago
The problems we need addressing could be happening in decades (some are manifesting already) so the rates of today do not have to be the ones in 50 years. I would rather focus on the closer dangers, than on what might happen in centuries... we are already over 8 billions, why would I worry if in centuries we are a billion less? Humanity will be still around and that looks to me like the only important gain.
- ben_w 2y ago
  The environmental problems we have today already have solutions in the lab, it's just about making them economical and scaling them up. > why would I worry if in centuries we are a billion less? Indeed, this is my position too. Hyperbolic discounting of the future: we don't know what's coming, let the future sort itself out and worry about the next 5 years. 25 years, we might get AI good enough for robot workforce and we can all retire instantly with no need for more kids entering the workforce to replace the pensioners, might get anti-aging and an end to old-age pensions, might get both, might get neither. (That said, the example I gave was a reduction to, not by, 6.9%; it would be a global population of 552 million).
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    > The environmental problems we have today already have solutions in the lab, it's just about making them economical and scaling them up. 'just' is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Lead is still in certain common fuels, some paints, and foods to this day.

wvoch235 2y ago

Can we agree: Claim 1: A “sustainable birth rate” is bounded by the efficiency of resource extraction and the repair rate of the environment for the damage the extraction does to it. Claim 2: It would appear that technology has accelerated so far very closely at the same rate as global population growth. Claim 3: Our efficiency of resource extraction has sky rocketed. Claim 4: Our damage to the environment has exceeded its repair rate as this has increased. Claim 5: A collapsed society would not immediately loose all of its population, and would likely be the most damaging to the environment in the shortest period of time. We won’t forget how to burn oil, but we won’t be using high efficiency well maintained engines when we do it. With that. Seems like there are two options before humanity: 1. Burn it all down, reduce population growth rate (doesn’t matter if it’s controlled [Mao] or uncontrolled [The West Today]), eventually loose genetic entropy, and before that loose (or automate and replace) the labor force that allowed for the resource extraction. The outcomes here are: a) Society collapses (genetic entropy, climate change damage that has already been done, destabilization caused by population reduction measures, etc) b) We automate labor and humans either are replaced entirely c) or a small oligarchy of humans exist to rule that automation. That population must keep genetic entropy through gene editing (requires a lot of novel advancement which is harder with fewer people, unless we’re curating) - or - 2. Address the reasons why people aren’t having kids in the west to maintain labor and genetic entropy, which mainly has to do with economic opportunity of young adults. And ensure that our resource extraction continues more efficient and that we either develop ways to limit damage or ways to accelerate the repair. Outcomes are: A) We fail to accelerate repair or reduce damage, and society collapses B) We succeed and we’ve managed not to damage genetic entropy and don’t risk a conflict over population control. The problem with option 1 is the implementation won’t be uniform, and population reduction globally cannot be achieved without some type of concerted effort. Consider for a moment how that is supposed to be implemented. If things go wrong in that effort, that leads to conflict. It seems very likely that society collapses as well. The other issue is considering the population number as the solution is it is a very short jump to the justification of genocide or some other form or population reduction. That also seems like it would accelerate conflict and therefore society collapse. The problem with option 2 is there is only so much time before our damage exceeds allowable levels.

xnx 2y ago

> in a society that fades away. I struggle to understand why continuation of society in a particular way is important to someone hundreds or thousands of years after their death.

alexey-salmin 2y ago
Well the goal of sustainability is the continuation of society in a particular way. By itself it can be important or unimportant, my problem is with people who somehow have it both ways.

johnea 2y ago

Humans are NOT an endangered species...