Hacker News Reader

Comment by remcob | Hacker News Reader

This is a rude misconception. Family size is mostly related to child mortality rates. In better off places the population growth is neutral or negative and evidence suggests this is causal, so better circumstance lead to _less_ growth, not more. (Source: Hans Rosling's Factfullness)

View on HN

I recall family size is most correlated with economy type, I.e. in agrarian economies children are looked upon as an asset (helping in the farm, taking care of their parents) vs an industrial/urban economy where children are “liabilities” the shift between the two is typically the largest driver of a reduction in birth rate (along with increase in education, and access to family planning)

That's not how anyone farms currently - you get a better productivity gain from a newer tractor or a better strain of crop then another kid.

I think the OP mentioned the difference between agrarian and industrial economies. There is a world of difference (this also goes, and relates, to the environmental impact between the two).

You mean that’s not how anyone farms in countries where they are dealing with obesity - that’s very much how people farm in countries where they are dealing with famine

The question then is, can we lift enough people out of poverty before they reproduce themselves (and us) into extinction?

As others have explained in this thread: Yes, easily, the projection is that population will top off soon and start declining. It is unlikely (frankly ridiculous) that we will go extinct in the next few decades because of overpopulation.

Also, be careful with the we/them separation. 'They' will lift themselves out of poverty, just like 'we' did.

This... the them and us dichotomy is really telling.

There are different lenses through which to view the world: a collaborative one.

Someone could also say something similar with regard to pollution, where it’s not the poor countries that are posing today an extension threat to the world.

The idea that poverty is harder on the environment then wealth is one that people are having a hard time wrapping their minds around.

I think it plays against the idea that we should be punished for success and rewarded for frugality. The idea that you can just pay money to get out of environmental problems strikes everyone as unfair.

I think that's a fair description of how the world really works though.

I think you have a sadly distorted view of the world. How do you believe that money paid affects your surroundings, really?

> reproduce themselves (and us) into extinction

How would that work? A catastrophic population crash would have a cause, and high population isn't itself a cause.

If we're talking overconsumption, that's a different conversation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com