undefined | Better HN

0 pointsBookmarkSaver10y ago0 comments

There are too many people on the planet to start with, and 1/6 of them is in China. The effect that they are having on the environment (both in "nature" and in their own living spaces) is atrocious, but there are too many people to reasonably switch to a sustainable model. Additionally, if you account for the fact that a gigantic portion of their land is basically uninhabitable (the Gobi Desert), they have an unreal population density (among non-trivial sovereign nations). If their population keeps expanding unchecked, they'll stop being able to feed everyone.

0 comments

8 comments · 3 top-level

TazeTSchnitzel10y ago· 3 in thread

> there are too many people on the planet to start with

Earth doesn't have too many people. The people inhabiting it are just, currently, quite wasteful with resources.

WildUtah10y ago

Earth doesn't have too many people. The people inhabiting it are just, currently, quite wasteful with resources.

What's the goal here? We could have many more people each living in misery, crowding, and poverty. Or we could have fewer people with each one being rich and free and having access to parks and open space to breathe and relax.

More people isn't somehow good in itself. Children are great but one or two is enough.

TazeTSchnitzel10y ago

> We could have many more people each living in misery, crowding, and poverty. Or we could have fewer people with each one being rich and free and having access to parks and open space to breathe and relax.

A false dichotomy. The latter experience can be given to the former's population.

More people isn't somehow "good", but it's not bad.

1 more reply

BookmarkSaverOP10y ago

At the trajectory we are going, there are too many people. Rather than simply assuming a solution would appear, China took action.

humanrebar10y ago· 2 in thread

> There are too many people on the planet to start with

The issue isn't whether that's true. The issue is who gets to decide what the right number is and what we all do about it. To most of us, the moral hazards (and realities!) of coercive birth control are severe.

jquery10y ago

The moral hazards of uncontrolled population growth are far more severe. The only question is whether we control population via a statutory law (as China did), or through extreme costs-of-living (as "liberal" Western countries do). I'd argue a statutory law is far more humane.
Not only more humane, but more fair. Why should the people who provide the least resources to their children be the ones to create the most human progeny?

humanrebar10y ago

Given that coercive abortion and gender selection are realities and the problems of overpopulation are more theoretical, I wonder what your definition of humane is.

And again, who decides which is more humane? If you and your cohort wants to stop reproducing as a good example, nobody is stopping you.

2 more replies

adamnyberg10y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UbmG8gtBPM

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse