Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

And thus population control is critical... QED. We don't have that covered at all at the moment: We are already 7 billions and will possibly be 11+ billions by the end of the century. That's insane.

Let's not forget that emissions are only a tiny part of the pressure we put on the environment.



Unless you plan on killing the top 90% GHG emitters over the next fifteen years or so, reducing population levels is not an option. Slowing population growth is important, but it's not a solution.


One of the problems we have is people not being able to take a long term view. Everything has always to work within 5 years... Result: nothing is done.

What I wrote should have started at least 30 years ago. As the saying goes, the next best time to start is now.


Unfortunately we have by now reached the time where options that aren't mostly done in ten years come too late to prevent catastrophic climate change.


It's going to be hard to do anything with the projected 60% population rise by the end of the century, though...

Most of the environmental damage is down to our growing population gobbling up resources.

Of course we should do things to get results quickly but we also have to look longer term if we want to see sustainable results.


You're right but in my opinion, we'll either figure out how to live carbon neutral more or less regardless how many people we have in the next two decades, or catastrophic climate change will ensure that the projected population rise will never happen.




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

Search: