6 ms·

> Don't fool yourself; we're not overpopulating ourselves to global economic and environmental meltdown; Yes we are. Yes. We. Are. Let it happen. I'll start p

> Don't fool yourself; we're not overpopulating ourselves to global economic and environmental meltdown; Yes we are. Yes. We. Are. Let it happen. I'll start panicking if the human population is still decreasing at 100 million. But for now, we are still growing.

pjkundert 4y ago
Humans are not “fungible”. Therefore: - Immigration will alter the societal outcomes of a region, for “better” or “worse”, as the region chooses - Destruction of productive and healthy societies by prolific but unhealthy ones will cause widespread harm. - Failure to reproduce at replacement levels won’t show up as a disaster until many years after it is too late to correct it. Wouldn’t it be better to aim to reduce harm and increase productivity, than to blanket reduce the overall population?
- dusted 4y ago
  Excel begs to differ ;)
- dbspin 4y ago
  Human's at scale are fungible. "Destruction of productive and healthy societies by prolific but unhealthy ones". I hesitate to use the word dog whistle, but this is pretty inarguably racist. Unless you'd like to clarify which 'unhealthy' cultures you're referring to. For many value judgements, the lack of social cohesion, level of violent crime, historically high rates of imprisonment etc make the US an 'unhealthy culture'.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    They are clearly referring to young people that can work vs old people that need care and cannot work
    - dbspin 4y ago
      That's not clear at all.
dmm 4y ago
Even if you believe that the earth is overpopulated and think a shrinking population is good, you still need to consider the sustainability of that population change. Birth rates below replacement means that the proportion of elderly increases every year, forever. This means an every increasing proportion of resources has to be transferred from the working to non-working population. It will become harder and harder for young people to build wealth and support themselves and it means fewer resources to solve the other very big problems we have such as climate change.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wildrhythms 4y ago
  I don't forsee climate change being addressed under today's economic system of 'build wealth and support themselves', so I'm not sure what kind of world you envision.
  - dmm 4y ago
    Do you think it would addressed under destroy wealth and neglect themselves? lol What are you even saying? I was just trying to say that as the proportion of retired people increases they will take more resources and that will mean fewer resources for /anything/ else.
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >Birth rates below replacement means that the proportion of elderly increases every year, forever. Not when life expectancy decreases, as it is here in the United States. >It will become harder and harder for young people to build wealth and support themselves and it means fewer resources to solve the other very big problems we have such as climate change. "Big problems" like climate change because much less "big" when other problems grow more pressing and threatening to immediate survival. People who don't have a roof over their heads or a meal to eat aren't concerned with climate change.
  - 4y ago
TylerLives 4y ago
I don't think the issue is the absolute number of humans but the ratio of young to old.
boppo1 4y ago
What is your response to Ezra Klein's "Your Kids Are Not Doomed"? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/opinion/climate-change-should-you-have-kids.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/opinion/climate-change-sh...

pjkundert 4y ago

Humans are not “fungible”. Therefore: - Immigration will alter the societal outcomes of a region, for “better” or “worse”, as the region chooses - Destruction of productive and healthy societies by prolific but unhealthy ones will cause widespread harm. - Failure to reproduce at replacement levels won’t show up as a disaster until many years after it is too late to correct it. Wouldn’t it be better to aim to reduce harm and increase productivity, than to blanket reduce the overall population?

dusted 4y ago
Excel begs to differ ;)
dbspin 4y ago
Human's at scale are fungible. "Destruction of productive and healthy societies by prolific but unhealthy ones". I hesitate to use the word dog whistle, but this is pretty inarguably racist. Unless you'd like to clarify which 'unhealthy' cultures you're referring to. For many value judgements, the lack of social cohesion, level of violent crime, historically high rates of imprisonment etc make the US an 'unhealthy culture'.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  They are clearly referring to young people that can work vs old people that need care and cannot work
  - dbspin 4y ago
    That's not clear at all.

dmm 4y ago

Even if you believe that the earth is overpopulated and think a shrinking population is good, you still need to consider the sustainability of that population change. Birth rates below replacement means that the proportion of elderly increases every year, forever. This means an every increasing proportion of resources has to be transferred from the working to non-working population. It will become harder and harder for young people to build wealth and support themselves and it means fewer resources to solve the other very big problems we have such as climate change.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wildrhythms 4y ago
I don't forsee climate change being addressed under today's economic system of 'build wealth and support themselves', so I'm not sure what kind of world you envision.
- dmm 4y ago
  Do you think it would addressed under destroy wealth and neglect themselves? lol What are you even saying? I was just trying to say that as the proportion of retired people increases they will take more resources and that will mean fewer resources for /anything/ else.
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>Birth rates below replacement means that the proportion of elderly increases every year, forever. Not when life expectancy decreases, as it is here in the United States. >It will become harder and harder for young people to build wealth and support themselves and it means fewer resources to solve the other very big problems we have such as climate change. "Big problems" like climate change because much less "big" when other problems grow more pressing and threatening to immediate survival. People who don't have a roof over their heads or a meal to eat aren't concerned with climate change.
- 4y ago

TylerLives 4y ago

I don't think the issue is the absolute number of humans but the ratio of young to old.

boppo1 4y ago

What is your response to Ezra Klein's "Your Kids Are Not Doomed"? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/opinion/climate-change-should-you-have-kids.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/opinion/climate-change-sh...