
Ask HN: Human replacement rate be adjusted to 1/2 surviving progeny/person - jelliclesfarm
Should we adjust our replacement rate from 2.2 to 0.5 surviving child per person?<p>Setting aside emotional reactions, wouldn’t we all survive as a species if we have a manageable population.<p>If we continue to compete with each other for gene pool domination, isn’t it folly as none of us will survive and it is akin to species suicide?<p>A request: Please don’t downvote or flag this post if it offends you. My comments get downvoted when I suggest population reduction and that’s ok.<p>But I would like to discuss this without the topic being considered taboo or untouchable.<p>It would be nice to explore different scenarios where we would be at 1..2..3 billion total population or a time progression of population growth at 50..100..150..200 years at various replacement rate levels. How does one project this?
======
gus_massa
> _isn’t it folly as none of us will survive and it is akin to species
> suicide?_

Do you have a link to a credible source that predict human extinction? Someone
serious like the IPCC.

Most model predict huge problems and catastrophes. If the hot and low level
part of the word become more difficult to inhabit, there may be huge
migrations and perhaps wars.

Imagine something like: Everyone moves from the south of India to Siberia, and
that makes India and Russia unhappy. But in most models the change is slow, so
perhaps something like this can be done peacefully. (I guess not 100%
peacefully, but I hope with a small amount of problems.)

What are the predictions for the increase of the sea level and temperature in
2119?

~~~
jelliclesfarm
We are in the middle of sixth extinction or holecene extinction..as a global
super predator..and apex predator, we can’t survive past mid way of an
extinction event as we depend on other species and terrestrial/marine
resources for our existence.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_extinction](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_extinction)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Extinction:_An_Unn...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Extinction:_An_Unnatural_History)

~~~
gus_massa
From the fist link:

> _Possible scenarios [for human extinction]_

> _Population decline through a preference for fewer children. If developing
> world demographics are assumed to become developed world demographics, and
> if the latter are extrapolated, data suggest an extinction before 3000 AD.
> John A. Leslie estimates that if the reproduction rate drops to the German
> level or Japanese level the extinction date will be 2400. However,
> evolutionary biology suggests the demographic transition may reverse
> itself._

The second link is about a huge problem, but it's not clear that it will hit
us (I can't find anything specific about human extinction in the link.) It's
more dangerous for overspecialized apex predator like whales that only can eat
krill. Even if we drop animal farming, we can choose from a dozen of common
cereal the one that is better for the new climate. Perhaps bananas that like
hot weather and are used as staple food in many countries.

The third link is very similar. I can't find anything specific about human
extinction in the link. Also remember that in a book the author can cherrypick
the parts to get a better story and sell more books. Try to look in the IPCC
report to have a scientific source.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
[http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html](http://arctic-
news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html) : I have often used this as a source for
my talking points.

thoughts?

~~~
gus_massa
Is the "Earth is facing a potential temperature rise of more than 10°C or 18°F
by 2026 from pre-industrial levels." published in a serious peer review
journal? How does it compare with the IPCC predictions?

In the first graphic the variation of the experimental data is so high that it
can't confirm or refute the exponential curve that is draw in the same
graphic. So it is not interesting and it may be misleading for someone that
don't understand how to read graphs.

Try to stick to serious reports, like the IPCC. See you in 2026.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
I am not a congregant at the Church of IPCC. See you..like..never.

May I request that you do me the courtesy of reading what I offered above. Not
just browse the graphs.

~~~
gus_massa
Don't worry. I've read the whole post before writing my previous comment.

------
aphextim
I think that in the end having so few humans on the planet would not be able
to sustain our current economic model where companies want as many consumers
as possible to maximize their profits.

Eventually with automation many menials jobs could be replaced and have been
replaced slowly over the past century or so. I think with the advent of A.I.
systems many tasks will be automated freeing up humans to be the maintainers
of such systems and we eventually would not need as many humans to produce for
the needs of everyone.

This allows a world population of 1,2,3 billion to be able to maintain/produce
enough to sustain everyone efficiently though automated systems.

Getting to that population would take many generations of educating people
that aren't privileged in the 1st world to learn to cull their habits. This
needs to be done willingly and not forcefully otherwise you just have a
genocide similar to another person who wanted one perfect society....

This could be done through incentives where if a country shows it is lowering
the overall impact of it's population and is consolidating itself to be better
for all, to be rewarded with economic incentives, better trade deals and other
means.

Countries who fail to reduce themselves would be missing out and even if the
elected leaders would prefer it that way eventually the citizenry would
ideally get itself a leader who would represent the interest of the
population.

Sadly, representation doesn't happen in many places on this planet and trying
to do this peacefully without war/violence against those who refuse would be
the hardest challenge. Other countries may need to 'wait' them out for a
generation or two. Refusing to trade/help them and let them self destruct with
over consumption until their population is small enough that they are willing
to rebuild.

However, when it comes to getting everyone on the planet to work in step with
each other for the benefit of all and not a self-serving interest.....good
luck.

Just my 2 cents on this 'taboo topic'

~~~
jelliclesfarm
Thanks for a well thought out reply.

If we incentivize people to procreate responsibly rather than reward all
procreations(tax break, better quality of life, UBI) rather than create
punitive measures, then we will be able to hasten meaningful change..

I would like to see robotics and automation in farming. I think this would
move us away from chemical warfare on environment. With more automation and
hedonistic lifestyles, UBI etc..plus anti-aging/life extension and ways to
clone/preserve our best genetic material(and combinations/permutations
thereof), why should there even be a desire for biological procreation. There
will be no more clock ticking.

