Hacker News Reader

Comment by ArkanExplorer | Hacker News Reader

Or, just have 2 billion people on the planet, instead of 8.

You're welcome to take the lead and do your part to move the planet one step closer then.

I've done exactly that. I've done my part by actively deciding to not have children. By doing so I've stopped the creation of an entire tree of exponential human population growth in the form of my (lack of) descendents. It's unquestionably the most effective way an individual can reduce the negative impact of humans on the planet.

Your humorous implication that suicide would be effective has some merit, but only for individuals who have not reproduced already.

Why do people always arrive at "cull the herd" before "our way of life should change"?

Because reducing each human's consumption by X% is always going to be less effective than flattening the exponential curve of population growth. It's not even close. Especially when the global trend is towards higher per capita consumption rather than the reverse. Reusing grocery bags in the US (hey I do it too) is nothing compared to the mass modernization going on in huge areas of the world.

And "culling" (I assume you mean through violent means) isn't necessary. Simply reducing birth rates achieves the same solution.

Such obvious truths are unfortunately incompatible with individual instincts to procreate.

Research who pollute/consume to most. One average American has the impact of many Africans, so some may have many children if they continue not to ruin the planet. And please compare the impact of top 10% richest US households vs the bottom 50%.

Quality > quantity.

An average American consumes more resources than the average African, but when measured against the science/economic output they create, the average American is still multiples of times more efficient.

Its also much easier to transition Western societies to renewable energy and EVs, which wipes out a lot of carbon emissions for example.

Additionally, much of Africa (20%) is reliant on food aid from the West, so its not fair to assign all of the resource use to the people who are feeding them.

> Additionally, much of Africa (20%) is reliant on food aid from the West, so its not fair to assign all of the resource use to the people who are feeding them.

Its going then to come as a shock to your world-view to learn that the UK, a nuclear power, with a permanent seat at the UN, and a card-carrying member of the West, had to receive food aid as recently as December 2020 from the UNICEF to feed their children [1].

So go turn your aircon off.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-55348047

Look at the lives of people who live in the large cities of Africa surviving on $3 a day. They consume less because they can't afford to do otherwise. They live in poverty. Their reduced per capita consumption does not stem from, as is subtly implied by these arguments, some simpler way of life that we could try to get back to if only we strived for simplicity. They just can't afford to replace their (for example) broken, hacked, and welded 30 year old bicycle rim that serves them poorly. When the opportunity arises to afford a new rim, they do it. They consume by the same processes we do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com