6 ms·

Wow. That is a scary view. Who should we eliminate then? I really hope climate genocide won’t become a thing…

dublinben 3y ago
Scary indeed. This perspective is known as ecofascism, and should rightly be rejected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism
jl6 3y ago
We don’t have to kill anyone, we just have to stop having >2 kids, and there is a lot of evidence that the best way to do this is to improve economic opportunity and education for women and girls in developing nations.
- giantg2 3y ago
  That might be a technically correct approach for the population growth if we ignore natual constraints. However, it fails if we take a larger perspective in the analysis. We see that the developed world produces more climate impact and has higher resource consumption. Shifting the developing world to a similar lifestyle is not possible due to constrained resources. If anything, in the short term it would lead to additonal resource depletion and more climate impact before we could realize any of the population reduction.
  - jl6 3y ago
    There are ways of improving economic opportunity without shifting to a grossly consumerist lifestyle. But even if there weren’t, it would be better to downscale the population through voluntary means even if it meant a climate hit. What’s the alternative? Birth rates stay high right up to the point of famine?
    - giantg2 3y ago
      "There are ways of improving economic opportunity without shifting to a grossly consumerist lifestyle." Such as? The only places with famine are the ones that are not wealthy/developed. Of course, it's not in absolute terms but rather relative terms since it's about who can bid the highest for the resources that are on the open market. The current population trajectory is that were already slated to peak in the next 50 years. The first real question is how fast can we decrease without major issues. The second is what is the sustainable population level that the earth can support with the modern high consumption lifestyle. But nobody really talks about this. In fact, we hear more from people like Musk about the population decline issue. That's rather local thinking. It's more of a population distribution issue than a deportation issue.
jackmott42 3y ago
We can either reduce our birthrate or let wars over resources do the culling.
DirectorKrennic 3y ago
.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- twirlip 3y ago
  I daresay China and the other nations would disagree with your assessment as to where the axe should fall. Your list--and I believe all such lists--has a strong subjective bias. I have no doubt there is a user on Tencent and a user on VK who have the US and Western Europe as candidates. I do suspect AI can provide a future Alexander with a tool to solve such a Gordian knot. ML controlling chaotic systems such as double or triple pendulums demonstrates how intrinsically unstable systems can be managed. Imagine the power and ability of 8 billion coordinated people.

Scary indeed. This perspective is known as ecofascism, and should rightly be rejected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism

jl6 3y ago

We don’t have to kill anyone, we just have to stop having >2 kids, and there is a lot of evidence that the best way to do this is to improve economic opportunity and education for women and girls in developing nations.

giantg2 3y ago
That might be a technically correct approach for the population growth if we ignore natual constraints. However, it fails if we take a larger perspective in the analysis. We see that the developed world produces more climate impact and has higher resource consumption. Shifting the developing world to a similar lifestyle is not possible due to constrained resources. If anything, in the short term it would lead to additonal resource depletion and more climate impact before we could realize any of the population reduction.
- jl6 3y ago
  There are ways of improving economic opportunity without shifting to a grossly consumerist lifestyle. But even if there weren’t, it would be better to downscale the population through voluntary means even if it meant a climate hit. What’s the alternative? Birth rates stay high right up to the point of famine?
  - giantg2 3y ago
    "There are ways of improving economic opportunity without shifting to a grossly consumerist lifestyle." Such as? The only places with famine are the ones that are not wealthy/developed. Of course, it's not in absolute terms but rather relative terms since it's about who can bid the highest for the resources that are on the open market. The current population trajectory is that were already slated to peak in the next 50 years. The first real question is how fast can we decrease without major issues. The second is what is the sustainable population level that the earth can support with the modern high consumption lifestyle. But nobody really talks about this. In fact, we hear more from people like Musk about the population decline issue. That's rather local thinking. It's more of a population distribution issue than a deportation issue.

jackmott42 3y ago

We can either reduce our birthrate or let wars over resources do the culling.

DirectorKrennic 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
twirlip 3y ago
I daresay China and the other nations would disagree with your assessment as to where the axe should fall. Your list--and I believe all such lists--has a strong subjective bias. I have no doubt there is a user on Tencent and a user on VK who have the US and Western Europe as candidates. I do suspect AI can provide a future Alexander with a tool to solve such a Gordian knot. ML controlling chaotic systems such as double or triple pendulums demonstrates how intrinsically unstable systems can be managed. Imagine the power and ability of 8 billion coordinated people.