Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjuhl | Hacker News Reader

No it's not. There are too many humans on the planet. Reducing the number would lead to a more sustainable situation. That's just basic logic.

View on HN

"Reducing" (by means unspecified) sounds uncomfortably close to mass killing.

Worse, the logic of the "climate action now" position is that we can't wait for 2050. That will be too late. Well, if you want to reduce the population by 2050, what concrete steps do you propose? (I know, you didn't say 2050. I think "action now" is inherent in the logic of your position, though.)

Reducing could simple as not adding that many more all the time. Increasing the level of global education will have that effect in itself.

Sure, not adding will work... by 2200, maybe 2100. But, if you believe the current panic about the climate, that's far too late. So if you think that the population has to be reduced, and you think that we need action by 2050 at the latest, what is your proposal?

Obviously, "not adding" is good but not sufficient. We need to decrease the population. There are multiple ways to do that (all unpopular): 1) (the obvious) actively kill some people. That would work but most people don't like that option. 2) inactively kill some people - by not trying to feed everyone, not trying to prolong the life of sick people etc. That's also not popular (but would help). 3) forcefully reduce increase by placing limits on numbers of children per person, forced sterilisation etc (also not popular). 4) Just wait; the climate change we've started + the rapid decrease in resources available will at some point force a massive die-off. That seems to be what everyone is going for..

You cannot fix overpopulation while still keeping your empathy and "everyone has a right to life" hats on. There needs to be a decrease and it will have to be ugly and unpleasant. No way around that. It's either survival of the species or the death of humanity. You have to take off the civilized glasses if you actually want to fix the global problem (which is the number of humans inhabiting the planet beyond its sustainable limits).

If we're willing to abandon empathy and kill massive numbers of people, one wonders what the point of us surviving as a species is. Isn't it better to die with our humanity intact, rather than to live on as monsters?

So you're advocating genocide. Great.

Just so you know, there isn't too many people for the planet. The planet can handle a lot more. What it can't handle is this many people at the US's level of consumption. But not consumption of food of medicine, but of banal shit like driving huge trucks with 10 MPG everywhere instead of using public transport, or overnight shipping for new iphone every year.

The simple solution is to stop consuming like crazy, which can be easily achieved by adding the planet-destroying externalities to price of everything.

Instead of, you know, genocide.

If there is no engineering solution coming soon, that is the only peaceful one. Either that or our hand will be forced by mother nature like whole countries start to get wiped off the face of the earth. I assume we will adapt if the change is not fast enough though.

So no proposal, just a dim view of our possible outcome if the overpopulation is not solved. The problem lies in how we view the earth as a personal resource instead of a shared habitat.

Given that our current education system seems to result in a sharp rise of the flat-earthers and the anti-vaxers, spreading it might just do the trick /s

Reducing can mean helping developing countries advance to a point where they have a social safety net, less children per family by having better sex education, more opportunities for women, access to contraceptives.

Or not raise the level and just let them die out. Is also an option. Not saying it's the best one, just saying that it is an option.

> "Reducing" (by means unspecified) sounds uncomfortably close to mass killing.

he's calling for basically this elsewhere in the thread.

You cannot deny that it would work. If we are seriously researching (global, species wide) solutions, it has to be part of the possible solution set.

If your focus is "survival of a given individual", then I agree it's probably not a solution. But if your focus is "survival of the human species in the long term", then it very much is a part of the solution space.

No it won't, because most of the world-destroying is done by the West (especially the US) because of high-tech high-consumption with no regards to environmental externalities.

Even if you march everyone in Africa and India do death camp (and it's always Africa and India with people like this), the US is more than capable of destroying the people by itself.

Our socio-economic model is completely dependent on 'growth' and consumption. It can not accept abstinence in any form as a solution to anything.

You first.

I'm very gay so it's pretty easy for me not to have children.

Done.

He said reduce, as in the numbers are to high now.

Still in?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com