Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Population Decline Will Change the World for the Better (scientificamerican.com)
25 points by andsoitis on May 4, 2023 | hide | past | favorite | 18 comments



If you're so against hearing any kind of rationalization or nuance about the drawbacks of unchecked population growth, please buy a ticket from Elon and turn some other planet into your Coruscant. Because some of us like this one, and we humans are destroying it with that kind of selfish thinking.

It's as if some people can't see that there might be middle ground between say an evil Eugenics master plan and a little bit better family planning for a few generations.


Absolutely. And what gets lost so often is that the population is still set to approach 10 billion over the next century and either flatten or gradually decrease back to levels still above where we are now by 2200. There is currently no projection that I’m aware of that has the population of the earth actually declining from current levels in the next 200 years. And that is without even taking into account any improvements in the health of older people leading to longer, healthier lives.


Where do I buy


Lol. Judging from the last rocket I think there could be some nose bleeds for cheap. I humbly ask though instead of mars, go colonize somewhere in a galaxy far far away. Otherwise, you'd be much too close for comfort for us Earthlings.


> Otherwise, you'd be much too close for comfort for us Earthlings.

Manner, Earther T3T


Disgusting drivel. People wonder why institutional trust is cratering.


[flagged]


Nasty closing sentiment aside (talk about poisonous), it should be self-evident to even a child that endless growth and finite resources aren't compatible.

Either we make sensible choices while we still can make choices, or face widespread famine and the inevitable oppressive regimes that follow it.


My entire life until past few years, the only population concern was overpopulation. What would we do if override Earth's carrying capacity?

Now that it looks like we'll coast up to not quite 10 billion by the end of the century with a flattening thereafter and maybe a slight gradual decline that would take at least another century to get back to the 8 billion level that we're at today... many people are reacting in a way I don't understand.

Even this mild moderating of human population growth is being presented as the end of humanity, with imagery of ghost cities and "last human please turn of the lights" storytelling. Yet lower end of the forecast still predicts more humans in 200 years than we have today.

There's nothing antinatalist about it. People who care about humanity continuing into the future should be celebrating our luck that nature seems to be giving us a chance to pause population growth while we figure out how to have 8-10 billion in decent living conditions while not wiping ourselves out.


> Anyone who thinks there should be less people should start with themselves.

That is exactly what is happening: people are choosing to reproduce themselves less abundantly than they did in the past, and a lower population will be the natural result. There's nothing sinister about it. If people in the future worry that the population is getting too low, the solution is simple and time-tested!


Antinatalism views reproduction as immoral.

This article isn't antinatalist.

This article states the irrefutable fact that as certain events occur, birthrates tend to decrease, and that it is not a cause for alarm as individuals and systems whose fortunes are tied to endless growth are asserting.

My wife and I have two children. Not the four of my parents and three of my wife's. That is not antinatalism, it is prudence.


Hmm two even sounds like a lot. You probably shouldn't have had that second one. We all need to do our part to reduce climate change.


There is no need to be salty about facts [1], and it’s unlikely you personally (mentioned because of the strength used in your top comment's language) are going to do anything when +1 billion people (at least) are going to suffer from climate change [2] [3] [4]. The people who said “I told you so” (including antinatalists) will sound callous, but they’ll have been right. Regardless, the system will reach equilibrium.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environmen...

[2] https://www.ipcc.ch/working-group/wg2/

[3] https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1082564304/billions-of-people...

[4] https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/07-11-2022-statement---...


So do you think that there should be unlimited population growth?

Should there be any upper bound or should we all live in microflats and eat bugs?

It's not antinatalist to think that this would suck. I hope that my friends and family are all able to live happy lives and reproduce at will, but scaling that up to literally everyone is disastrous. We don't even have enough resources for half of the current population to live my life.


What's stopping the author of this piece from leading by example?

It's always the other guy who needs to be "declined".


Perhaps she is leading by example; how would you know otherwise? This article is not about her personal family planning decisions.


It sounds like you’re reading things into the article that aren’t in the article.


Nope, I read every tendentious word and got the point that the author wanted me to get. It's not like she's not already a known voice (albeit with nothing new to say) in this space.


Fairly obviously.

I would much rather live in a world with 1 billion people than 7. Less competition for everything.

Imagine if the UK had the population of London. It'd be brilliant, we could all have enormous houses and our total carbon footprint would still be far less than currently.

If you're in the elite and you _do_ want the poors to breed you're frankly just a bit daft. The entire climate conversation is based on "we should have our fair share each", not everyone accepts that.




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

Search: