6 ms·

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 i

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.
      - alexey-salmin 2y ago
        > 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. This makes no sense. Sustainability means an ability to maintain the current trajectory. Yes, standards of living are not the same in different places but it has nothing to do with what "sustainability" means. On a side note if you actually care about the bottom-line standard of living then you probably should wish for bigger population and bigger economy. The correlation between the two is very strong, many things we have now (like microchips) become unaffordable if you scale down production.
        Attrecomet 2y ago
        We very literally do not have the resources to lift up every human on this planet onto US living standards. There is not enough oil, not enough uranium, not enough rare earths that we know how to extract to provide the whole world with the glut of energy that the average American requires for their standard of living. I most certainly do NOT need to wish for bigger populations in order to increase the bottom-line standard of living.
        alexey-salmin 2y ago
        > I most certainly do NOT need to wish for bigger populations in order to increase the bottom-line standard of living. Well maybe, just maybe, try once looking at the historical data [1] to see how it works? Economy is not a zero-sum game where dividing resources among the smaller number of players gives you a win. Yes, with the current technology stack lifting everyone to the current US level is impossible, that's precisely why it's so important to keep pushing. Earth continuously receives 44 quadrillion (4.4 x 10^16) watts of solar energy on average it's more than plenty to have decent standards of living for everyone if captured. The problem is, development of technology is extremely expensive, effectively impossible unless you spread the cost among a huge number of end-consumers. If the population didn't grow like crazy in the past centuries we wouldn't have the technology we have today and the bottom-line standard of living would be way lower than what we have today. And so would be the US standard of living because US wouldn't be sitting on top of a 8-billion-people economic pyramid. Very lucky for the world's poorest (and for all of us) that we didn't listen to cries of de-growers in the 18th century. In principle not much have changed since then. Amount of energy at our disposal is still laughable, so the road ahead is longer than what we did so far. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:Wo...
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  The current population is made possible by fossil fuels and if we get off of them too fast, million will die... We don't have nearly enough of any alternative to actually get off of fossil fuels in general. In addition, only fossil fuels make sense for military operations, which will forever be a necessity.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    We don't at this instant have enough, but of what relevance is that? The relevant question is how rapidly we can move to the alternatives.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      That isn't what the comment I replied to said. Paraphrasing, they said in present tense, that we have enough alternatives to support the current population and that we can only survive if we eliminate fossil fuels. But the truth is we desperately need fossil fuels now and alternatives are still mostly lame and undeveloped. Furthermore, we need more energy than ever to run AI according to current projections. People on here are quick to condemn people for eating meat but they're fine with dubious uses of electricity for lame AI.

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.
    - alexey-salmin 2y ago
      > 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. This makes no sense. Sustainability means an ability to maintain the current trajectory. Yes, standards of living are not the same in different places but it has nothing to do with what "sustainability" means. On a side note if you actually care about the bottom-line standard of living then you probably should wish for bigger population and bigger economy. The correlation between the two is very strong, many things we have now (like microchips) become unaffordable if you scale down production.
      - Attrecomet 2y ago
        We very literally do not have the resources to lift up every human on this planet onto US living standards. There is not enough oil, not enough uranium, not enough rare earths that we know how to extract to provide the whole world with the glut of energy that the average American requires for their standard of living. I most certainly do NOT need to wish for bigger populations in order to increase the bottom-line standard of living.
        alexey-salmin 2y ago
        > I most certainly do NOT need to wish for bigger populations in order to increase the bottom-line standard of living. Well maybe, just maybe, try once looking at the historical data [1] to see how it works? Economy is not a zero-sum game where dividing resources among the smaller number of players gives you a win. Yes, with the current technology stack lifting everyone to the current US level is impossible, that's precisely why it's so important to keep pushing. Earth continuously receives 44 quadrillion (4.4 x 10^16) watts of solar energy on average it's more than plenty to have decent standards of living for everyone if captured. The problem is, development of technology is extremely expensive, effectively impossible unless you spread the cost among a huge number of end-consumers. If the population didn't grow like crazy in the past centuries we wouldn't have the technology we have today and the bottom-line standard of living would be way lower than what we have today. And so would be the US standard of living because US wouldn't be sitting on top of a 8-billion-people economic pyramid. Very lucky for the world's poorest (and for all of us) that we didn't listen to cries of de-growers in the 18th century. In principle not much have changed since then. Amount of energy at our disposal is still laughable, so the road ahead is longer than what we did so far. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:Wo...
wakawaka28 2y ago
The current population is made possible by fossil fuels and if we get off of them too fast, million will die... We don't have nearly enough of any alternative to actually get off of fossil fuels in general. In addition, only fossil fuels make sense for military operations, which will forever be a necessity.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  We don't at this instant have enough, but of what relevance is that? The relevant question is how rapidly we can move to the alternatives.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    That isn't what the comment I replied to said. Paraphrasing, they said in present tense, that we have enough alternatives to support the current population and that we can only survive if we eliminate fossil fuels. But the truth is we desperately need fossil fuels now and alternatives are still mostly lame and undeveloped. Furthermore, we need more energy than ever to run AI according to current projections. People on here are quick to condemn people for eating meat but they're fine with dubious uses of electricity for lame AI.