Hacker News Reader

Comment by hvasilev | Hacker News Reader

All technological revolutions require more energy and consumption. Remember that the infinite source of societal wealth is technological progress. If you limit technological progress then economics becomes zero sum. This cannot happen, it is a precursor to endless world wars and our inevitable doom by our own hands.

Prosperity vs nature is not a question. There is no path backwards, there is only forward. The only hope is that in our path forward we will come up with solutions that can fix the issues that we have caused due to our past progress.

View on HN

This reads like religious dogma to me.

For some reason this comment makes me think of "The Machine" ad from the Australien Government:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWl7kQZHZE0

The problem is overpopulation. Who cares if economics is zero sum when there is more than enough for everyone? It's only when there's scarcity of the necessities that war becomes a foregone conclusion.

The path backwards is depopulation, and living as stewards of nature who help the land flourish rather than viewing it as a resource to be raped for the benefit of the few.

I disagree. The problem is affluence and technology. We can keep improving technology and keep a fixed population, but we should be reducing affluence. The fact that an equal amount of money can make one live like a king in one part of the world and as a hobo in another part of the world indicates that wealth is not used as effectively as possible.

You can observe that there is instability in every post-industrial society, when there are fewer manual jobs for the working class. When factories close the knock-on effects on households and local economies are devastating. I see it in every council estate of the towns and cities I've visited.

Additionally, it is difficult to see how restrictions on family can be imposed without becoming a totalitarian nightmare. Unless you look to China for enlightenment with its 'One Child' policy... which has the unintended consequence of a gender imbalance favouring boys. That of course means a lot of unhappy males, thanks to a shortage in available women. If we coalesce these two effects, you don't want masses of unhappy, unemployed males.

What is proposed here is impossible to achieve without inflicting unimaginable misery for millions. No thanks. Surely there are better and more gradual solutions which do not require the imposition of force rather than this euphemism of 'depopulation'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com