Hacker News Reader

Comment by Garlef | Hacker News Reader

So? It's not like there's to few people. Population growth can't be exponential forever.

This line of reasoning is dangerous, limiting our reproduction through social means is much less dangerous than if it’s in inflicted on humanity biologically.

Why is that?

Uncontrolled loss of reproductive ability could easily spiral and be the end of our species, that is assuming that we haven’t had the same affect on other species, which is not a given either.

“Children of Men” outlines what that might look like.

Population growth is at the lowest level in decades.

Good. It still needs to get lower, to 0, or even better to a slow decline.

To have a global negative population growth rate could only happen in the case of a severe epidemic, something like the Spanish Flu did a 100 years ago (~100s of million died then).

This would not really be good for anyone.

> To have a global negative population growth rate could only happen in the case of a severe epidemic

Why? Europe (as an example) has a net population decrease, why can't this happen on a global scale without an epidemic?

This presupposes that humanity is better off with fewer humans. I am far from convinced that this is the case.

Sure, if you want society to collapse.

Are you suggesting we should annihilate the human race altogether?

population is already expected to peak in a few years. check the maths.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com