6 ms·

What’s the problem? We’re committed to destroying livable human habitat for 100M’s to 1B’s of people via global warming. That’ll be less painful if there are

by hedora 4mo ago

What’s the problem? We’re committed to destroying livable human habitat for 100M’s to 1B’s of people via global warming. That’ll be less painful if there are fewer people. Lower populations should lead to lower emissions growth too.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 4mo ago
[flagged]
- chipsrafferty 4mo ago
  Ah yes let's "make progress" on a planet where people refuse to consume less and we have finite resources.
  - hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 4mo ago
    More zero sum thinking.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
- hilariously 4mo ago
  What indicators do we have that we care enough to solve the problem? It may be doomer to think we must slow down, but "the other side" just hand waves all the problems and says we'll magically fix them with future technology magic - its not reassuring.
arbll 4mo ago
There's a significant risk it will lead to a large reduction in living standards. A lot of things like retirement funds are built with the assumption of infinite growth. This assumption will obviously break one day and when it does I don't see how it could go smoothly. On the plus side, it will likely lead to lower emissions, assuming it doesn't lead to massive wars or other destructive behaviors due to the instability it will bring.
- triceratops 4mo ago
  > retirement funds are built with the assumption of infinite growth Of workers. Because retirement funds take money from workers to pay for retirees. Assets and productivity, on the other hand, can grow a lot more than the population. Right now it's considered communism to tax assets. Once we get over that taboo things'll go a lot smoother.
  - RickJWagner 4mo ago
    That would destroy the incentive to save. Why put aside a dollar now, only to have it taxed every year? Better to spend it while it’s whole. That changes future value calculations, too. These are things not to mess with lightly.
    - triceratops 4mo ago
      > That would destroy the incentive to save. Why put aside a dollar now, only to have it taxed every year? Ok? If you choose to spend a dollar instead of saving it, that implies some business will get that dollar. That implies someone will still invest in, build, and run businesses. > These are things not to mess with lightly. I agree. It requires a lot of thinking, discussion, deliberation and all that. But the basic math doesn't lie. We will have fewer workers in the future. Machines will make more and more stuff. If you want to continue supporting retirees as promised, then taxing the machines is the only answer. Otherwise you'll have to break some promises to retirees and pensioners; now that's a real disincentive to save.
    - thrance 4mo ago
      > Better to spend it while it’s whole. Yes, that's the whole point. That's a good thing. Money is meant to be spent, not be hoarded and slept on forever. Money velocity is terrible right now, capital generates more income than wages, this is neither healthy nor sustainable, and certainly isn't fair to the ones actually doing the productive work. In the ideal society there'd be no Epstein or Thiel, everyone would have a rewarding and productive economic activity.
    - 4mo ago
jorblumesea 4mo ago
most retirement systems assume at least stable population growth. if the system can't sustain itself, debt borrowing can be done but eventually creditors will come calling. what it means in practical terms is the destruction of the modern social safety net. some declining birth rates are ok but places like Japan, Spain, and South Korea look disastrous.
profdevloper 4mo ago
Who's 'we' in this context? USA? China? Developing nations?
- MSFT_Edging 4mo ago
  Global economy. You cannot shift the consumption blame onto the country producing the good for another. The pollution in China created to make phones for Americans is part of the same transaction. It's like when the US used to ship our plastic waste to China, and China stopped accepting it. China only had a plastics pollution problem because it was a cheap buck to sweep an American problem under a Chinese rug.
3stacks 4mo ago
You are so delusional

by hedora 4mo ago

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 4mo ago

[flagged]

chipsrafferty 4mo ago
Ah yes let's "make progress" on a planet where people refuse to consume less and we have finite resources.
- hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 4mo ago
  More zero sum thinking.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
hilariously 4mo ago
What indicators do we have that we care enough to solve the problem? It may be doomer to think we must slow down, but "the other side" just hand waves all the problems and says we'll magically fix them with future technology magic - its not reassuring.

arbll 4mo ago

There's a significant risk it will lead to a large reduction in living standards. A lot of things like retirement funds are built with the assumption of infinite growth. This assumption will obviously break one day and when it does I don't see how it could go smoothly. On the plus side, it will likely lead to lower emissions, assuming it doesn't lead to massive wars or other destructive behaviors due to the instability it will bring.

triceratops 4mo ago
> retirement funds are built with the assumption of infinite growth Of workers. Because retirement funds take money from workers to pay for retirees. Assets and productivity, on the other hand, can grow a lot more than the population. Right now it's considered communism to tax assets. Once we get over that taboo things'll go a lot smoother.
- RickJWagner 4mo ago
  That would destroy the incentive to save. Why put aside a dollar now, only to have it taxed every year? Better to spend it while it’s whole. That changes future value calculations, too. These are things not to mess with lightly.
  - triceratops 4mo ago
    > That would destroy the incentive to save. Why put aside a dollar now, only to have it taxed every year? Ok? If you choose to spend a dollar instead of saving it, that implies some business will get that dollar. That implies someone will still invest in, build, and run businesses. > These are things not to mess with lightly. I agree. It requires a lot of thinking, discussion, deliberation and all that. But the basic math doesn't lie. We will have fewer workers in the future. Machines will make more and more stuff. If you want to continue supporting retirees as promised, then taxing the machines is the only answer. Otherwise you'll have to break some promises to retirees and pensioners; now that's a real disincentive to save.
  - thrance 4mo ago
    > Better to spend it while it’s whole. Yes, that's the whole point. That's a good thing. Money is meant to be spent, not be hoarded and slept on forever. Money velocity is terrible right now, capital generates more income than wages, this is neither healthy nor sustainable, and certainly isn't fair to the ones actually doing the productive work. In the ideal society there'd be no Epstein or Thiel, everyone would have a rewarding and productive economic activity.
  - 4mo ago

jorblumesea 4mo ago

most retirement systems assume at least stable population growth. if the system can't sustain itself, debt borrowing can be done but eventually creditors will come calling. what it means in practical terms is the destruction of the modern social safety net. some declining birth rates are ok but places like Japan, Spain, and South Korea look disastrous.

profdevloper 4mo ago

Who's 'we' in this context? USA? China? Developing nations?

MSFT_Edging 4mo ago
Global economy. You cannot shift the consumption blame onto the country producing the good for another. The pollution in China created to make phones for Americans is part of the same transaction. It's like when the US used to ship our plastic waste to China, and China stopped accepting it. China only had a plastics pollution problem because it was a cheap buck to sweep an American problem under a Chinese rug.

3stacks 4mo ago

You are so delusional