Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikkelam | Hacker News Reader

Is this really so bad? Assuming humans are hit the hardest, the planet will be better off.

Obviously we wouldn't want it to kill our civilization, but for the mean time, it doesn't sound so bad with less homo sapiens

View on HN

1. This is happening in the western world, not in places the population is growing fastest

2. It's not just less humans, it s of worse quality

1. The per capita environmental footprint is at least an order of magnitude, if not closer to two, higher in the western world 2. The subtext of this point is so distasteful to me that I can't figure out how to engage with it. How do you measure the quality of a human?

I mean health-wise, as the article says. You measure it with objective measures. I m not sure why it s distasteful to you?

> How do you measure the quality of a human

Net worth obviously. Riffraff are mostly worthless creatures.

> 2. It's not just less humans, it s of worse quality

what do you mean by this? that humans not of the western world are "lower quality"?

I think GP meant that lower egg quality leads to more birth defects, etc. So not just fewer humans born, but those born have more problems. A statement which is completely independent from point 1.

I assumed that this characterization in this context meant "less capable to protect Earth/environment/humanity", which is not too controversial given the inverse correlation between average education level and birthrates

No , i mean lower sperm/egg quality. Why are people quick to jump to extreme conclusions here?

jeez point 2, western chauvinism strikes again.

What global human population could we stabilize at in a climate change and/or ecological collapse worst-case? Personally my guess is around 500 million or so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com