Hacker News Reader

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15019192 and marked it off-topic.

You are talking about children dying...

And you are also making the assumption that only Europe can contribute to innovation, and Africans can only be a burden on their neighbors and will never become contributors.

I would agree that if the solving of a crisis like Malaria results in population growth, we need to plan on success and also focus on supporting infrastructure for those people.

But I think you are saying something much more horrific. Maybe work with your therapist on empathy.

We need someone as smart as you to focus on making the world a better place for everyone, not using your intellect to make scientific justifications for genocide.

I don't know if that was an intentional flattery tactic to get me to read your most more closely, but it worked, thanks, regardless.

I'm surprised if the post read as "more children dying is the obvious optimal path," that wasn't my intent.

I'm meaning to draw attention to the fact that if we are going to have outside interventions into societies that have drastic effects on those societies, then the outside interventions should include plans for all foreseeable(and vigilance in watching for unforeseeable) drastic effects they incur, be they in population structure, political structure, etc.

In this case birth control education seems a prudent corollary plan to disease eradication. But it's more of a thorny problem than just saying here read this book, take this class, take this pill, if these reproduction strategies are expressions of deeply ingrained genetic tendencies.

Certainly birth rate in the western world has declined, but there are lots of differences in the western world and Africa. Not least of which westerners never had outside interventions into their culture and environment of this nature.

You didn't address it and I think there is merit to the point being made about your "bedside manner". I agree with your viewpoint, but it is important to tread carefully when it comes to the lives of others. Your point can be lost not by lack of merit but by lack of semantics.

Thank you for the feedback! Being hyper aware(at least I think so) of this issue you mention I tried mightily to tread carefully.

I think for the most part, the nature of the issue just makes it inherently open to objections of "bedside manner" when discussed in "polite society."

What do you think I could have done better in terms of phrasing or what have you?

I think the easiest way is to explicitly call out possible arguments and get your opinion out in front. E.g "Some might say this gives me a lackadaisical attitude towards the lives of others. Conversely I have nothing but the utmost respect for the lives of others and am concerned with the well being of others"

It's not a perfect example but it's an easy way to show that you are thinking about other people and what they might be thinking. You can combine this with an invitation for people to voice their opinions. People like knowing that their opinion is valuable especially when your assertions put the reader at odds with their own opinions.

Just a few things I've found help internet discussions. People read things with different voices and diffferent inflections so it's important to be explicit when possible, especially on a subject that is truly difficult to discuss in polite company.

Thanks for taking the time, I appreciate it.

Just so you know, I did go through your comment history far enough to make my own assessment of your intelligence.

You had thoughtful comments about women in tech, crypto currency, and some others I liked as well.

We share a lot of the same opinions, I just want to make sure we are not proving the ammo for the next Dr.Gobells.

.

We've already asked you to please stop using this site for political and ideological battle, and we ban accounts that won't.

Some think decreasing poverty/disease actually decreases population growth. This is what Peter Diamandis argues in his book "Abundance: the future is better than you think". His reasoning (based on correlations and maybe causational data) is poor families have a lot of kids because they think many of the kids are going to die. But once their situation improves they have less kids.

That makes the assumption that the "disruption to the neighboring continent" is going to be worse as a result of overpopulation than it already is dealing with neighbors who are poor and impoverished and disease ridden.

In both cases I don't think the "civilized" neighbor continent is enjoying the benefits of its poorer neighbor. There is an equal argument to be said that by eradicating these diseases that the poorer neighbor is able to pull itself out of that poverty.

Regardless, history is filled with population surges and mass societal disruption -- I am sure we can resolve it over time.

Civilized, no quotes needed.

Eh, mostly quotes since the definition of civilized is up for debate for the given discussion.

Does an African neighbor qualify? European only? etc

Gates has addressed these concerns with scientific data showing that "when children survive in greater numbers, parents decide to have smaller families."[0]

[0]https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/Resources-and-Med...

Yeah they've been saying that for a while now. Who's wrong, Gates or the UN?

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/55d38ec0dd089595388...

Certainly, it is important to make efforts to be cognizant of negative ripple effects arising from even the most altruistic of endeavors, but it is also necessary to actually make decisions. The Horizon Effect[1] is unavoidable in situations like you are describing, but the most we can do is act conscientiously and avoid paralysis due to the inherent uncertainty that arises from our actions. I know this isn't the exact point you were raising, but reading in between your comment lies what I suspect is a hyper awareness of consequence, and I wanted to share my thoughts on that.

In response to the specific fear you mention, while this may be possible, I would consider it more important to successfully eliminate Malaria than to not do so for fear of the negative repercussions you raise. I think it is both more uncertain and more unlikely for those negative consequences to materialize in such a way that leaves humanity and leaders unable to respond adequately.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_effect

(edited for typos)

Good response!

It is certainly good to consider this perspective, thanks for the insight and link.

To me it seems that potential negative consequences of continued rapid population growth in Africa aren't so nebulous and beyond the horizon, we are already seeing them materialize, certainly there are other problems that need to solved as well, like certain elements of society attempting to browbeat others into thinking these societal disruptions are normal or acceptable or shouldn't be guarded against, but the population growth outside Europe is one of the prime movers of the negative effects we have already observed.

If things continue as they are the only uncertainty is the degree to which European civilization and thus European civilization's contribution to the world is negatively effected.

I harbor no affinity for Malaria or human suffering in general, but by ham handedly addressing this patch of suffering are we pulling open a larger patch somewhere else?

So what's the best way to address the suffering caused by malaria with a little more finesse and awareness?

Is there even a direct provable causal link between mosquito nets and population growth?

As mentioned, we are discussing an immensely complex system with all the surprises and non-linearity that entails.

what, if any, are other causes of African population growth?

What should be the Hippocratic Oath for philanthropy?

"First do no harm" is taken, "Secondarily no harm"?

How many steps toward the horizon should we take to determine if harm is occurring?

These are all interesting questions! I would like to mention that it is important to remember when analyzing these scenarios that the world in which we live is very much a real-time system; seldom is it necessary to make decisions for "long time horizons" without the opportunity to adapt, change or update the decisions along the way.

For example, consider the hypothetical scenario where a cure for Malaria is spontaneously discovered and rolled out in Africa. Suppose, then, that in the few years following the end of Malaria, African population economists argue that an explosion is in play, to the point where the country cannot hope to continue to support itself into the future. In this scenario, I find it hard to imagine that even the most austere and strictly enforced population control program could not match the rate at which the population would increase due to the elimination of Malaria. Moreover, I would not expect that even in the hypothesized scenario, such austere measures would need to be enforced, although I will leave that to the economists and public health experts to figure out. I would suspect that most people would prefer a reality in which Malaria does not exist, but every family in Africa is only legally permitted to have one child, than a reality in which no restrictions on family size are imposed, but Malaria remains a top killer.

The point I am making here is that this is very much a real-time system, in the sense that action can be taken as soon as it is suspected that negative effects may be growing. If such negative consequences are to arise, we are not committed to a downward spiral without intervention. Furthermore, I would consider it unlikely that the rate at which the population would grow as a result of eliminating one of the leading causes of death is so great such that no intervention by the African people can keep the "net good" of the scenario positive.

(Let us suspend, for the sake of argument, the thorny path of quantification of good - suppose we use QALYs, with some simplified metric for human quality of life that is defined in such a way that makes comparisons meaningful)

"How dare these children live and cause me mild economic discomfort."

The insight I was meaning to convey was more along the lines of, How much benefit have things like harnessing electricity, or the germ theory of disease brought to the world? Nearly incalculable right?

So if European society suffers mass upheaval and disruption in coming years owing to causes we can plainly see at present, how many more of these monumental, universally beneficial innovations and achievements will die in the crib?

What are your thoughts on pediatric cancer research in Western countries?

The US fertility rate is less than half of what it was a century ago, and less than a third of what it was 150-160 years ago. European fertility rates are similarly down by fourfold or something. It does not take many generations at all for fertility rates to drop precipitously once child mortality, women's education, etc go up. Your underlying premise "there is significant delay in the abatement of the overproduction strategy if it abates at all" is probably not correct, for any reasonable definition of "significant delay".

Your underlying premise "there is significant delay in the abatement of the overproduction strategy if it abates at all" is probably not correct

That's the premise of population forecasters at the UN.

Why do you think healthier Africans would cause mass societal disruption in Europe? Do you think they're not capable of contributing to European society? Are they more likely to leave Africa if they don't have malaria? Is there no room for population expansion in Africa?

I genuinely don't understand the premise of your questions. Why would people start leaving Africa, and why would it be a problem if they did?

You raise some worthy questions, particularly, Is there no room for population expansion in Africa? with which I would be happy to engage, but without knowing that we are operating on the same baseline level of reality, I'm hesitant to do so.

Why would people start leaving Africa, and why would it be a problem if they did?

Are you completely unaware of events that have been transpiring in Europe the past couple years?

But I don't think it makes sense to compare population expansion to a refugee crisis. People leaving Africa right now are being forced out by war and violence, most of them aren't choosing to leave. In your hypothetical, I assume people are leaving for economic and social reasons, normal motivations for voluntary immigration. I don't think the refugee crisis will continue forever, and I don't think malaria eradication will reach the sources of the refugee crisis until the violence has mostly subsided.

Edit: I phrased this a little wrong, the source of the current refugee crisis is mostly not Africa, but my point is that the societal disruption you're referring to is not caused by voluntary immigration.

>People leaving Africa right now are being forced out by war and violence, most of them aren't choosing to leave.

That was probably true in the past, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore:

"The UN has said that seven in 10 people crossing the Mediterranean from Libya are economic migrants and the rest are 'people in need of protection' like refugees and asylum-seekers."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4661866/amp/UN-says-...

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/12FDB/production...

Downvoted for citing UN data. Unbelievable.

I absolutely agree with you -- the great proportion of migrants are coming for economic reasons.

It seems that clear-cut numbers that do not fit the "women & children escaping war-torn Syria" narrative have a tendency to get down-voted...

People leaving Africa right now are being forced out by war and violence, most of them aren't choosing to leave.

As respectfully as possible, this is completely wrong.

https://www.google.com/search?q=migrant+crisis+economic

I phrased this a little wrong, the source of the current refugee crisis is mostly not Africa, but my point is that the societal disruption you're referring to is not caused by voluntary immigration.

Not even the majority of unauthorized border crossers into Europe are from Syria. Once again with all due respect, these are very definitely voluntary actions on the part of the border crossers.

Check out this article from 2 years ago, even then it wasn't primarily Syrians.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/closing...

The migrants come from a vast swath of Africa and the Middle East, spanning not only war-torn Syria (in the first four months of 2015, Syrians accounted for just 30 percent of those crossing the sea) but also Nigeria and the Gambia and Eritrea and Somalia and Mali.

The migrants who embark upon this journey are typically represented as terrorized and impoverished—as people driven (to quote Amnesty International) “to risk their lives in treacherous sea crossings in a desperate attempt to reach safety in Europe.” The demographic and economic facts complicate that story. When populations flee war or famine, they generally flee together: the elderly and the infants, women as well as men. The current migrants, however, are overwhelmingly working-age males. All of them have paid a substantial price to make the trip: it can cost upwards of $2,000 to board a smuggler’s boat, to say nothing of hundreds or even thousands of dollars to travel from home to the embarkation point in the first place. Very few of the migrants from Libya are actually Libyan nationals.

Thanks, that was plenty respectful and I didn't know that. I wish there were sources and numbers to define "overwhelmingly", and I think refugees are probably more likely to pay "a substantial price" than a voluntary migrant, but overall I get the point.

I'll fall back to my other question then, why would people leave? I was looking at this image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis#/media...

It seems like most migrants at the moment are not from Africa. If their motivations are mostly economic, we would expect the numbers to rise in proportion with the population, right? And they would be tempered by economies improving as their citizens get healthier and more productive and they stop having to fight and treat malaria. After some time, people will adapt to having healthier children and the rate of population increase will get lower.

I'm just not seeing this imminent crisis of exploding numbers of African migrants, and I don't see how the issues of integrating people could possible outweigh the benefits of people not dying.

I also have some issues with what qualifies as "mass societal disruption", but I guess that's mostly a semantics argument.

Every single image I've seen of this has been overwhelmingly young males, the personal experience of everyone I know in the affected areas has been that they are overwhelmingly young males. In most cases cases "overwhelmingly" is an understatement, because they are all young males.

The data on that map is from 2015.

If you want to read about migrant/illegal border crossers from Africa in recent years, italy has been bearing the brunt of it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=italy+migrants

Here's a recent video from a spanish beach that looks like some kind of absurdist theater. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA02zZCGTdk

I also have some issues with what qualifies as "mass societal disruption", but I guess that's mostly a semantics argument.

How about pre-meditated and coordinated sex attacks with 1000+ perpetrators?

This was hardly an isolated incident, just one of the more shocking in scale and brazen in execution.

https://www.google.com/search?q=new+year%27s+eve+cologne

Societal disruption needn't be limited to large scale events like the above, just the steady flow of increased crime disrupts and degrades society. https://www.google.com/search?q=migrant+crime

The fewest are real refugees fleeing war and violence. Most migrants are just doing it for economic reasons.

This leads to surreal situations like in Germany, where asylum seekers went for holidays in the countries they had "fled" from in the first place. Everything on welfare payment, and the legal explanation was some convoluted "they have a human right to go back to their own country" kind of argument.

Population growth is not exponential. Africa is not special.

"Diminished prospects of the world at large" more accurately describes the world after your post, not saving millions of lives.

This is what happens when you either have no empathy in your worldview or an extreme racial bias.