Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

[flagged]



Not really needed. Birth rates need to be at 2.1 births per woman for a population to not contract. Nearly every industrial nation has fallen below that. Over the next few decades (up to a century), most of the world will likely be there. With increased urbanization, the problem will eventually be a continually contracting population.

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/birthrates-are-declin...


I'll bite. By equally distributed, do you mean random? Sure, you can control population that way, but not without brutal authoritarianism, depriving innocent people of their reproductive rights and invasion of their body.

If you mean non-random, then who decides? Morality, productivity and purpose are culturally and individually relative. Having the majority or even a powerful minority decide what future children should be born is even more authoritarian than the first approach.

If you're worried about the planet not being able to support too many people, there are many other options that promote kindness, respect and privacy while promoting a sustainable environment.


This is literally comicbook thinking. Other than thanos seeking this goal, can you describe how the human race could be saved by extremely reducing the population?


It's not just a hard conversation, it is an impossible conversation.

The only viable avenue is education and even then life is very much geared to beget more of it. And that's before we get into life extension.

The better alternative is to get off the planet. The only reason we are exhausting the planet is because there is more of us every day and the same amount of planet to be divided.

Or there might be some man made or natural disaster around the corner, one thing is for sure: it will not continue this way for much longer.


It says a lot about humanity when getting off the planet is easier than having a conversation.


It's tough when the cancer is sentient, distributed, and has a sense of morality.


I like this


I seriously doubt we are anywhere near population maximums for this planet. Even in our mismanaged state of resource usage we have such sheer over abundance and waste we don't deal with. We face a problem of distribution to those in need in countries whose governments directly or indirectly prevent said resources from reaching those in need. We don't even use the majority of arable land for crops yet


Exactly. If we figured out how to do vertical farming efficiently, and packed more people into cities in an efficient but highly livable manner (more high-rises, much better public transit, getting people to stop expecting a giant house with giant yard and having cars to take them everywhere), we could easily both expand the human population and also return a lot of land to nature.


Historically we're living in the best times we've ever had.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: