Hacker News Reader

Comment by thisisweirdok | Hacker News Reader

People typically have fewer kids as their society develops. Average age in the developed world is almost double of places like Africa. There is some evidence that slowing or decline in population is a reasonable expectation.

Also, from Wikipedia:

Low estimates suggest a decline

Moderate estimates suggest a plateau

High estimates suggest constant increase

Time will tell, and estimates suggest that the earth can comfortably support ~10bn

---

I don't think housing prices have much to do with population increase, but more to do with urbanization (as well as increasing wage gaps).

People are flocking to existing cities, and the more center you are the higher prices are.

This pushes people to the outskirts, which become more urbanized, which spreads urbanization through the same cycle.

View on HN

Increased urbanisation is at best marginal in Western countries. This is not what is driving prices.

But top places like London now attract from a global pool of billions.

People need to realise that a world with 10 billion does not look like a world with 2 billion.

Lastly, the planet has trouble with us now... It's terrorism to suggest that 10 billion is just fine.

>Lastly, the planet has trouble with us now... It's terrorism to suggest that 10 billion is just fine.

Calling it terrorism is a bit absurd.

It's totally possible (and even likely within our lifetimes), but that doesn't mean that there aren't huge logistical issues to overcome for it to be comfortable.

One of the main problems is that the world population is so widely distributed. We can already feed and house everyone, we already have more resources than what would be required... they're just not distributed appropriately (some due to hoarding, some due to supply chain barriers, political borders, etc).

Considering the current environmental issues this is not absurd at all.

It is because I didn't say it was "just fine" I said "can" as in "is possible" — which is objectively true.

...and even if I did say it was "just fine" it wouldn't be tantamount to terrorism because I was pointing out something that is very likely inevitable.

I'm not invoking 3 billion people by assuming one day they will exist.

It is intellectual terrorism. I am sorry but sometimes things must be called out even if the feelings of thin-skinned people are hurt.

It is only 'inevitable' because no-one has cared about it and, worse because some try to downplay the issue.

I did not accuse you personally, but you also did not say that it was inevitable, you spread the opinion that it was fine.

Those who claim that it is all good are pushing us to the abyss.

Edit: Downvoting the inconvenient truth won't make it go away.

I don't know if anyone's ever told you this, but you're being outwardly shitty when you have no reason to be. You're just throwing the word terrorism around disingenuously to get a rise out of people.

It was not disingenuous. You complain too much while avoiding the point.

Your only point is that the suggestion of the earth supporting 10bn people is akin to terrorism (which you later amended to "intellectual terrorism"), which I'd argue is objectively disingenuous... and completely pointless.

This conversation has reached the point of unproductive a while ago.

I'm sure you'll try to bait me back into it, because you fit that MO, but you're on your own.

Please, describe to me how pointing out the inevitability of population increase is terrorism.

You don't need to weaponize "sorry" — just don't say it.

It doesn't make sense to jump to ad hominem attacks because someone's calling you out on a statement that seems completely irrelevant.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com