https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation#History_o...
Currently standard of living are growing almost all over the world and human population is predicted to pick and stabilize at around 11 billion.
I really recommend "DON'T PANIC — Hans Rosling showing the facts about population" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E
What's also interesting in his video is the fact that people tend to be very misinformed about state of the world affairs. E.g. when asked questions about certain statistics, they do worse than random. And the better educated you are the more misinformed you may be.
Or would "unsustainable carbon emissions and ecological damage" be enough? And if that's enough, aren't we already there today?
And yes, I would gladly give up my right to procreate. I have no interest in having children, primarily because I believe it's a terrible thing to do in today's world.
Speaking as bluntly as I can here : if you want to have kids to gain a 'deep and rewarding purpose' because you somehow feel lacking in purpose, please don't have children.
It's analogous to a teenager that joins the military out of high school because "they don't know what they want to do.".
Figure things out, then make a decision. Don't make some big brash decision in order to figure things out. The only 'depth' that might added to your life may actually just be unenjoyable complexity and nuance.
This is a fundamental tragedy of the commons. I feel guilty about even wanting to have two kids at some point due to the climate impact. Everywhere I look I see people having large families without caring. This has to be balanced long term for our species (and others) to survive centuries from now.
Because its not an issue any more. The world wide population is stabilizing. Most countries of the earth will face a population collapse in the next 30 years.
Is it harder? Sure. But it's possible. More people is more labor to fix things. The labor just needs to be used correctly, and consumption needs to be reduced and changed.
Talking about overpopulation and "shaming Western countries" sounds a bit like a Trojan horse for some racist policies, considering that population is growing the most in non-western countries.
IMHO the opposite is happening. Former developing countries are raising their living standards dramatically, which inevitably results in a larger economic footprint per capita. Also, migration to developed countries usually increases the living standard of the migrants, but this also increases their economic footprint. I just do not see where consumption is being reduced.
Yes, climate change will cause issues. Then again, the last glacial maximum was fairly recent, only ~20k years ago. Climate change has happened and will happen. And the world won't end. Either the Earth's systems will adapt, or we'll find a technological solution. Or maybe everyone will simply move to Canada, Russia, Greenland and Antarctica.
I'm all for solutions, but at the end of the day, people will keep on living and I suggest this girl do the same (then again, she's probably being bankrolled by someone so maybe she is actually living her dreams).
Sure. Fires in the arctic are normal things [1]. 100+ degree summers in Germany and France are totes the norm. [2].
Reality has a climate-crisis bias.
> In fact, living conditions are better than they ever have been.
This is a false dichotomy - that improved worldwide living conditions don't indicate a looming climate crisis. It could be argued that it all gets better until it starts falling apart rapidly.
[1] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190822-why-is-the-arctic-o... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2019_European_heat_wave
>> Yes, climate change will cause issues. Then again, the last glacial maximum was fairly recent, only ~20k years ago. Climate change has happened and will happen. And the world won't end. Either the Earth's systems will adapt, or we'll find a technological solution. Or maybe everyone will simply move to Canada, Russia, Greenland and Antarctica
There is a limit to the rate at which the ecological systems can cope up with the damage we are doing. We have no right to go on abusing the Earth's systems just because humans can save themselves using technology.
> Or maybe everyone will simply move to Canada, Russia, Greenland and Antarctica.
So, which country is going to invade Canada to force them to allow in all these migrants? Or do you think they'll just do it willingly when people were screaming about 10,000 Syrian refugees? At the rate that global warming is progressing, there's no time for this kind of massive re-settlement without equally massive geopolitical upheaval.
> Either the Earth's systems will adapt...
I mean - duh - of course they will. The danger is not that global warming wipes out life on earth. It's that it sends human civilization back to the Stone Age or wipes it out completely (if Stone Age technology doesn't allow for survival). The idea that there's a technological solution assumes that we can manufacture and power such a thing without using even more fossils fuels to do so. I'm not convinced.
I think we are all suffering somewhat trying to deal with this truth and work out how to find our place in the solution.
does being autistic in that manner (your diagnosis, not mine) also give oneself free access to the worlds' media outlets and financial support to trot the globe at 16 years old, or could that be one of the so-called coercers'?
I'm absolutely against climate change, and on her side of the opinion, but to ignore the fact that she's being propped up as a media object is silly. Could you have had her impact at 16 without support from others? I bet not, unless you're really extraordinary.
Do you have a list of names?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg#Criticism_and_r...
A couple centuries ago there were wars all over Europe, Asia, Africa, in the US alone the Revolutionary war and Civil war, wars with the Spanish, natives, etc...
Yes, I think over the timeframe where global warming will actually force true mass migration (if we don't reverse it first), it'll probably be peaceful.
Personally, I don't care about carbon taxes (I drive a Tesla, too). The poor people on the other hand, will have to suffer even more apparently. They are the main beneficiaries of cheap energy/pollution, since they buy a lot of stuff that's only cheap because it comes from countries like China and India and taxes on fossil fuels and meat will hit them hardest.
Also, instead of taxation - which is more more easily fungible - you aim for the phasing-out/banning of industrial processes which are overly polluting. With that, there's less of an immediate gain from careless de-regulation.
sarcasm And yes, of course, global warming is the biggest existential threat to humanity. Poverty, hunger, addiction, homelessness, open defecation, and other trivial issues aren't really the ones Governments' should prioritize, it should be protecting humpback whales and ecosystems! sarcasm
Realize there are finite amount of resources any Government can direct towards any problem. If all attention and resources go to global warming (which is open ended problem as compared to poverty), then we will end up with disastrous consequences, both to humans and to the planet.
Global warming is an existential threat to modern civilization. If we allow it to continue unchecked, it will result in catastrophic changes in prevailing weather patterns, sea level, and animal and plant life. These might not be enough to wipe out all human life on the planet—we might very well even be able to recover from it, eventually—but it is likely to create enough instability worldwide to cause many major governments to topple.
Now, again, this is if we let it go completely unchecked, and none of this is stuff that would happen within a year or two. But we're already seeing some of the effects, and there's nothing to suggest we won't see the rest if we just shrug our shoulders and say, "Eh, there are other important things, too."
Most of which get worse w/climate change
"HN" is a diverse community that represents a distribution of points of view.
When controversial topics get flagged, it's often not because people disagree with the opinion expressed, but rather that people expect the discussion will be of low quality - i.e., a flamewar dominated by a small number of ideological zealots, in which the loudest participants just stick to their preconceived point of view, and nobody really learns anything new.
Science suggests otherwise. Have you read the IPCC report?
