4 ms·

We can't keep making more people and expect the world to not change.

by krunck 2y ago

tdb7893 2y ago
Humans will inevitably change the world but there's also lots of things that humans do that really increase their impact (global warming, farming that emphasizes really high land use foods, industrial pollutants, poor stewardship of land in general). I think just emphasizing population growth is ignoring tons and tons of decisions that we make
- generativenoise 2y ago
  Since the popular narrative completely ignores population for the most part in the: impact = population * pollution/intensity rate per person relationship. Since no one want to discuss active limits and we would rather have limits as second order effects of other policies. Calling out a comment for just mentioning growing population is a bit weird. Since world fertility seems to be dropping, it is unlikely to dominate in the future. Therefore, your summation of what we should be focusing on would be more correct. This hasn't always been true and it is still and important factor to keep in mind.
  - ForTheKidz 2y ago
    > Since no one want to discuss active limits We're nowhere near active limits. Of course the limits will shrink with mismanagement, but we could feed a good deal more people with the amount of food we produce today. Axolotls were doomed by other sins of humanity.
    - melagonster 2y ago
      We will reach there soon. A tendency is that people don't want more than two kids after they are rich enough. So we just need to wait for everyone rich enough.
      - mjh2539 2y ago
        The trend reverses above $200k (in 2021).
        Suppafly 2y ago
        >The trend reverses above $200k (in 2021). I'm ok with that, they wealthy can afford to have more kids.
      - dudinax 2y ago
        That will change quickly
        melagonster 2y ago
        If you can find any resolution, the Japanese government will be very happy.
        dudinax 2y ago
        I'm not saying the change will be good for Japan!
      - account42 2y ago
        Until we completely replace human labor there is no such thing as everyone getting rich because wealth is ultimately relative.
- jjulius 2y ago
  It's all-encompassing; there are way too many of us and, on the whole, we kinda suck.
  - wincy 2y ago
    People who believe that will natural selection themselves out of existence and nobody will think such silly things in a few hundred years. Modern liberal sensibilities are a disease that can only be sustained on the back of a healthy host. It’s funny that the people most likely to believe in evolution are the least evolutionarily fit.
- wincy 2y ago
  The funny thing is degrowth will almost definitely result in us burning lignite which is essentially super dirty coal. It’s freely available all over the surface of the earth, while the cleaner burning fuels are more difficult to get. We’ve seen Germany turning to lignite to heat homes due to the Russia Ukraine conflict. Very good chance there’s a huge spike in global emissions if population decreases. Not to mention evolution will route around the antibiotic of neo-globalism and whatever creed promotes having kids will inevitably win out in 100 years when all the liberal atheists don’t have kids for a few generations. It’s gonna be all Mormons and Muslims as they’re praising Allah for giving them the bountiful peninsula of Hanbando after the previous inhabitants disappeared due to their “sinful ways”. This future is far more likely than people think.
  - account42 2y ago
    > We’ve seen Germany turning to lignite to heat homes due to the Russia Ukraine conflict. Coal is used mainly for electricity, not heating homes directly. And shutting down nuclear plants is the main reason for the increasing demand of dirtier energy sources even if Russia is a convenient scapegoat.
  - bildung 2y ago
    > We’ve seen Germany turning to lignite to heat homes due to the Russia Ukraine conflict. No, this is false, as you can see here lignite consumption actually dropped: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c... It also doesn't make sense because the installed heating infrastructure for gas almost never can't also burn lignite.
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >and whatever creed promotes having kids will inevitably win out in 100 years when all the liberal atheists don’t have kids for a few generations. That is sadly true, the religious seem to be outbreeding the rest of us by a huge factor. On the plus side, religion gets less popular every year, so hopefully it hits a sweet spot where the over reproduction is offset by people losing faith.
sureIy 2y ago
Thankfully the course is reversing. Now the issue will be longer and longer lives, but we're working on reversing that too.
CalRobert 2y ago
More people who eat 3 cows a week and drive a monster truck 40 miles each way to work? No. More people who mostly eat plants and mostly take the train or ride their bike where they need to go? Shouldn't be a big problem.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 2y ago
  3 cows a week is an insane amount of food. Most I can manage is 1.75, but my average is 1.1. Which is actually quite nice, because that's about the most I can comfortably fit in my monster truck.
  - CalRobert 2y ago
    It was an exaggeration, but my point is that focusing on population when one person can easily have ten times (or more) the impact of someone else seems like a distraction.

We can't keep making more people and expect the world to not change.

by krunck 2y ago

We can't keep making more people and expect the world to not change.

Humans will inevitably change the world but there's also lots of things that humans do that really increase their impact (global warming, farming that emphasizes really high land use foods, industrial pollutants, poor stewardship of land in general). I think just emphasizing population growth is ignoring tons and tons of decisions that we make

generativenoise 2y ago
Since the popular narrative completely ignores population for the most part in the: impact = population * pollution/intensity rate per person relationship. Since no one want to discuss active limits and we would rather have limits as second order effects of other policies. Calling out a comment for just mentioning growing population is a bit weird. Since world fertility seems to be dropping, it is unlikely to dominate in the future. Therefore, your summation of what we should be focusing on would be more correct. This hasn't always been true and it is still and important factor to keep in mind.
- ForTheKidz 2y ago
  > Since no one want to discuss active limits We're nowhere near active limits. Of course the limits will shrink with mismanagement, but we could feed a good deal more people with the amount of food we produce today. Axolotls were doomed by other sins of humanity.
  - melagonster 2y ago
    We will reach there soon. A tendency is that people don't want more than two kids after they are rich enough. So we just need to wait for everyone rich enough.
    - mjh2539 2y ago
      The trend reverses above $200k (in 2021).
      - Suppafly 2y ago
        >The trend reverses above $200k (in 2021). I'm ok with that, they wealthy can afford to have more kids.
    - dudinax 2y ago
      That will change quickly
      - melagonster 2y ago
        If you can find any resolution, the Japanese government will be very happy.
        dudinax 2y ago
        I'm not saying the change will be good for Japan!
    - account42 2y ago
      Until we completely replace human labor there is no such thing as everyone getting rich because wealth is ultimately relative.
jjulius 2y ago
It's all-encompassing; there are way too many of us and, on the whole, we kinda suck.
- wincy 2y ago
  People who believe that will natural selection themselves out of existence and nobody will think such silly things in a few hundred years. Modern liberal sensibilities are a disease that can only be sustained on the back of a healthy host. It’s funny that the people most likely to believe in evolution are the least evolutionarily fit.
wincy 2y ago
The funny thing is degrowth will almost definitely result in us burning lignite which is essentially super dirty coal. It’s freely available all over the surface of the earth, while the cleaner burning fuels are more difficult to get. We’ve seen Germany turning to lignite to heat homes due to the Russia Ukraine conflict. Very good chance there’s a huge spike in global emissions if population decreases. Not to mention evolution will route around the antibiotic of neo-globalism and whatever creed promotes having kids will inevitably win out in 100 years when all the liberal atheists don’t have kids for a few generations. It’s gonna be all Mormons and Muslims as they’re praising Allah for giving them the bountiful peninsula of Hanbando after the previous inhabitants disappeared due to their “sinful ways”. This future is far more likely than people think.
- account42 2y ago
  > We’ve seen Germany turning to lignite to heat homes due to the Russia Ukraine conflict. Coal is used mainly for electricity, not heating homes directly. And shutting down nuclear plants is the main reason for the increasing demand of dirtier energy sources even if Russia is a convenient scapegoat.
- bildung 2y ago
  > We’ve seen Germany turning to lignite to heat homes due to the Russia Ukraine conflict. No, this is false, as you can see here lignite consumption actually dropped: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c... It also doesn't make sense because the installed heating infrastructure for gas almost never can't also burn lignite.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >and whatever creed promotes having kids will inevitably win out in 100 years when all the liberal atheists don’t have kids for a few generations. That is sadly true, the religious seem to be outbreeding the rest of us by a huge factor. On the plus side, religion gets less popular every year, so hopefully it hits a sweet spot where the over reproduction is offset by people losing faith.

sureIy 2y ago

Thankfully the course is reversing. Now the issue will be longer and longer lives, but we're working on reversing that too.

CalRobert 2y ago

More people who eat 3 cows a week and drive a monster truck 40 miles each way to work? No. More people who mostly eat plants and mostly take the train or ride their bike where they need to go? Shouldn't be a big problem.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 2y ago
3 cows a week is an insane amount of food. Most I can manage is 1.75, but my average is 1.1. Which is actually quite nice, because that's about the most I can comfortably fit in my monster truck.
- CalRobert 2y ago
  It was an exaggeration, but my point is that focusing on population when one person can easily have ten times (or more) the impact of someone else seems like a distraction.