Hacker News Reader

Comment by im3w1l | Hacker News Reader

We are living the Malthusian dystopia and the solution is as trivial to state as it is impossible to implement. A global one child policy.

View on HN

Oddly, I think outright banning fossil fuel refinement and usage would do more.

Being an only child seems to be a bit psychologically damaging. I could conjecture for pages here, but suffice it to say I believe one is better off having 2-3 children or none at all. Sure there can be situations like being raised closely with cousins or friends that are similarly beneficial, but kids absolutely must have close companions near their own age -- they don't seem to fully learn to be empathetic otherwise.

This is only the opinion of one person, take it however you wish.

I agree with your first assertion, but would need to see some science on the second. I don't recall ever reading about negative outcomes for only children. On the contrary only children often have many advantages. More parental attention and time. More resources, all other things being equal. More money for college. More money for medical care (braces, eye care, etc.). More money and time for hobbies like sports or music.

I don't have any stake in this (no kids and unlikely to ever have any), but I feel like I've read that only children do better on many metrics than kids with siblings, all other factors being equal.

If you have siblings, one of the most important lessons you can learn is that it's not all about you.

Having more advantages is exactly the problem talking about. People, especially kids, need to scrabble a bit and fight for resources in order to learn how to treat the resources themselves and the other parties who might need them respectfully.

Fossil fuels are responsible, in multiple ways, for approximately 100% of the food eaten by human beings today. Additionally, fossil fuels are responsible for heating homes in winter, and for transportation networks which allow access to modern medical care.

Therefore, if fossil fuels were banned, wouldn't millions of people quickly die from starvation, cold, and lack of medical care? Wouldn't that be psychologically damaging to humans all over the world, to watch loved ones die and worry about one's own premature death?

> This is only the opinion of one person, take it however you wish.

As someone who is supposed to be unable to be empathetic, I kinda wonder how you came to have this opinion.

That's pretty polarizing. I think I said something to the effect of not developing the same, not "failing to develop any empathy at all". I and many of my friends have kids. They don't come into contact with each other more than occasionally, but the ones who are only children are much less willing to create something out of nothing and, say, play with the one toy that was available. Social situations, like having very close friends or cousins help, but something like preschool isn't 24/7. From observing the little guys, the ones who pitch screaming fits when their mum leaves them and I'm dropping off my kids are not the ones with siblings. And they're losing resources they haven't learned to share yet. I wouldn't say it's impossible for only children to learn empathy, just that it happens later, differently, and maybe doesn't achieve the same end goal of having a human being who's always had to share things 24/7.

As societies get richer, they have less kids. And each child has more capital. This isn't a bad outcome.

That has been the trend so far. But I would be cautious about extrapolating too aggressively from that. A situation with rich people that aren't breeding is not evolutionarily stable.

What does that even mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy

TIL

Super interesting!

Though it wasn't exactly what I meant. I just meant some people will be more and some will be less inclined to children. And that in society where people choose not to have children there will be a strong evolutionary force favoring those with a stronger drive for children.

I agree this would make sense in countries with high birth rates, but applying it to countries with low birth rates would just accelerate their extinction. Also partially related, but movie "Idiocracy" (http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/) comes to mind here.

> A global one child policy.

This would essentially wipe out siblings, which could mean that we lose any associated culture?

The concern is that the alternative could wipe out humans, which of course includes siblings.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com