Comment by cnorgate | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cnorgate | Hacker News Reader

The problem with this thinking is a failure to realize that we are already taxing the Earth far beyond its carrying capacity. To continue supporting even our current population will force us to devastate our planet to the point that we won't recognize it in 50-100 years. What's the point of supporting more people if we bring them into a miserable world?

Certainly we COULD continue developing innovations that harness and shape the natural world to support continued human population growth... but that line of thinking doesn't give room to consider whether we SHOULD do that.

Should population growth be a goal? What about raising the standard of living of all those who are already on the planet - helping them move from mere sustenance to abundance, and the opportunity to explore the true wonders life has to offer?

Should we live in a world void of natural beauty? I don't think it's a fair trade to have a few more billion people on the planet if everyone then has to read about how beautiful the Earth was before we poisoned the seas, melted the ice caps and drained the soil of its nutrients.

We are at a point now where we as a Human race can and should be thinking about our population growth responsibly. To suggest that we COULD adapt to a future world taxed by overpopulation doesn't imply that we SHOULD follow that path.

we are already taxing the Earth far beyond its carrying capacity

And your evidence for this is?

To continue supporting even our current population will force us to devastate our planet

And your evidence for this is?

What about raising the standard of living of all those who are already on the planet

As the article clearly states, the obstacles to doing this are social and political, not environmental or technological. People are starving or living at bare subsistence level, to put it bluntly, because our social systems suck at empowering people to make a better life. We allow predatory individuals, whether they are tinpot dictators or investment bankers, to siphon off resources they don't need and will squander anyway at the expense of others. That is what we need to fix.

Should we live in a world void of natural beauty?

No, and we don't.

before we poisoned the seas, melted the ice caps and drained the soil of its nutrients.

And your evidence that this is happening is? More precisely, your evidence that all these things are worse than they were, say, 1000 years ago, is?

You can form your own opinions about global warming, rising ocean levels, the acidification of the seas, the destruction of our rain forests or the unsustainable nature of our carbon based economy (see peak oil). I don't have time to reference the multitude of articles on the subject, but they're abundantly available... there's this great site called Google.com which can help you with that.

Regarding the issue of 'natural beauty' in the world, I see it on a micro-level when I go to a lake in the summer that was once pristine but is now overrun with seaweed due to Nitrogen runoff from farmer fields. I see it on a macro level when I read about things my children's generation might never enjoy, like the beauty of a coral reef.

At the end of the day with so much 'pseudo science' thrown around from fringe scientists, all anyone has is an 'opinion'. You now have mine.

At the end of the day with so much 'pseudo science' thrown around from fringe scientists, all anyone has is an 'opinion'.

That was kind of my point, except that you and I would probably have different opinions on which particular arguments about these issues come under the heading of "pseudo science".

Also, you are basically saying that we don't know enough about these issues to make useful predictions about the future. At least, if that's what you were saying, I agree with you. But your post was full of predictions about the future; saying that they're "opinions" doesn't give them any more weight. If you don't know what's going to happen, the correct thing to say is that you don't know--and to base your actions on understanding your lack of knowledge, not opinions that have no useful value.

I do not want to be mean, but can you not just read existing material on Human population growth, pollution and global warming.For a start you can try high school environmental science book.Then may be you can come up with some counter-evidence with hard facts (like shaking up the environmental sciences pile of data of over 50 years).

I've read lots of existing material, including all of the IPCC reports that have been produced to date. If you think those reports, for example, consist of "hard facts", or a "pile of data" that requires detailed refutation if I don't want to buy into somebody's hysterical declarations of a planetary emergency, then there's not much point in further discussion.

As for a high school environmental science book, surely you jest. A politically correct textbook produced for politically correct state-run schools?

To continue supporting even 1/10 of our current population will force us to devastate our planet eventually, if we don't change the way we support it.

More people means more science and better ways of sustaining population.

And we are not stuck on our planet forever, there are more planets nearby waiting to be 'devastated'.

>>> And we are not stuck on our planet forever, there are more planets nearby waiting to be 'devastated'.

Yeah right! We can have a movie on that planet with Cameroon directing,can't we?.

All snark aside, there is only one planet which is nearby and can be terra-formed, Mars. Our Solar system is huge as we go far from our sun, we loose precious energy we get from sun which is very important to sustain any kind of flora or fauna.And no the big moons of Jupiter are quite hostile and cold, one the moon has liquid methane raining from it's atmosphere. How can you terra-form that? Anything further than asteroid belt is just too damn cold.

Now coming to other solar systems, I learnt in my high-school that our near star Alpha Centauri (I know proxima centauri is the nearest, but alpha was mentioned in our textbook, but doesn't matter same system) is more than 4 light years away and no planet in the habitable zone.However if anyone builds a machine which enables us to travel to alpha in say a couple of months. I will immediately marry and procreate(May be in 10 years have 5-7 kids).

I hope Elon Musk(or someone else) succeeds and dies a natural death on Mars. It is important for humanity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com