Hacker News Reader

> People aren't the problem. The problem is people who have negative value. A person can grow more food, build more homes ...

Resources on this Earth are limited. Things like space/real estate/ agricultural land etc. There's already a lot of pressure on them with the current level of population. I don't know about you, but if the average world citizen would consume like the average American, the planet would run out of things like some rare earth minerals fairly quickly. Pollution would also be a far bigger issue.

> The problem is people who have negative value. This is just introducing an us vs them mentality. There are no bad people, everyone is just trying to survive and get their needs met, through whatever means they have at their disposal. The people you say have negative value (for you) are exactly the people that were born in less privileged circumstances.

> A hack might be only letting people who want children and want to take care of children have kids ... There are so many ethical problems with this paragraph, that I won't even go into that.

And besides, the current political and economical system is simply not suited for such the current level of population we have. Wealth is getting concentrated more and more at the top of the pyramid, and the fat bottom of the pyramid is just becoming worse and worse a place to live in.

While I don't disagree with most of what you said, I still think there are too many people. I think you are only looking at the US. Look at the conditions that people live in around the world, especially in crowded cities in places like China. The world can support more people if it has to, but the estimates I've seen range from supporting 8 billion to 11 billion people. The UN is estimating that the population will peak around 2050-2060 with 11.5 billion people.

The real question is sustainability. Our economies are based on consumption, contain a lot waste/pollution, and unevenly distribute resources. The areas most likely to grow (third world areas) are also have the least environmental laws or enforcement.

Why do people who are financially independent or pay the legal minimum in taxes need to go? To me, it sounds like it would be better to fix the tax system, the welfare systems, and the conditions that trap people in poverty.

Also, how do you suggest we just grow more food? Land suitable for growing food is shrinking worldwide. It is highly unlikely that we will "need more people growing food", since the trend we are seeing is for larger mechanized and automated monoculture farms replacing small farms.

I also don't see access to birth control being the main goal. It is certainly a big goal in some countries along with changing cultural perceptions of using it, like what has/is happening in India. But there will be people in developed societies that have many kids too. I see plenty of people who have large families and seem to grow them further regardless of their financial situation even if they have access to birth control.

> A hack might be only letting people who want children and want to take care of children have kids, and have multiple kids.

How? We can not even achieve that for pets. Can you come up with any valid qualification process for this?

It's too big a problem to go into detail, but it's more of a social/cultural problem and the wrong incentives.

Poorer families and cultures are encouraged to have kids, because kids can bring in more money, take care of other kids, feed their parents. People are often told, "Who's going to take care of you when you get old?" Having kids as an investment/retirement plan is bad.

Then there are those who really want kids and would love to take care of them. 2-child policies are bad for them and the punishment can be too harsh. It's better for those people to have 4 kids, while other individuals have 0.

Policies should be more towards the quality of kids and not quantity. One of the biggest expenses is college, medical (especially special children), and housing. Housing is hard to fix, but we could probably subsidize college and special education more.

Plus at the macro level, most economies are consumption driven and rely on population as a major driver of growth.

I disagree with subsidizing college more that it is already. There are numerous scholarships available to promising students. Also, the government has been directly and indirectly funding colleges through grants and easy to get student loans. The problem with this is people going to college who might not be able to perform at that level, or who are unable to find a job that pays high enough after graduation. There is research that shows that some minority groups tend to pick careers in lower paying fields because they want to make a social impact (think teaching, social work, etc), so not everyone's goal is to maximize profit. There are plenty of trades that one can make more money working in, such as diesel-electric mechanic, welder, auto mechanic, aviation mechanic, etc.