undefined | Better HN

0 pointseddd-ddde1y ago0 comments

At the end of the day the Earth's resources are very much finite. We simply can't have indefinite growth, so it doesn't make sense to use it as a metric.

0 comments

pacerier1y ago

> finite

Sure, everything is finite, but 8 billion is too little. Earth can fit 8 trillion and more, all we need is more science.

aucisson_masque1y ago

That's a very optimistic way to think. But every new technology brings its set of failure and danger.

For instance energy: petrol -> pollution, nuclear energy-> tchernobil, danger currently in Ukraine with the war, ...

Food : fertilizer -> water pollution and eutrophication

Housing: more home -> less free soil to retain water, insane flooding.

And so on, and so on.

Anyway by the time we reach 8 trillion, a nuclear war surely would have already started and wiped us all

pacerier1y ago

> set of failure and danger

Then what you need is moar science. 10x, 100x, 999999

Log_out_1y ago

science is very much limited by human ability to not regress to violence when limited when h^n meets the l*r there be carnage without modifications .

pacerier1y ago

all we need is more science.. and religion

eddd-dddeOP1y ago

Maybe, but what's the point ? If science improves shouldn't we aim for less population?

Less people can keep up with more production. Less people means less impact on the environment. Less people means more nature. At least personally I rather have less people on the planet at any given moment.

pacerier1y ago

why production? environmental? nature? Who cares about these things more than caring about humans [and happiness thereof]?

Sure I want less people and more earth to myself too, but if everyone [overall] wants as many free kids as they can afford, how on earth are you going to end up with having less people?

A girl's maximum happiness is directly correlated with the number of children she has. regardless of how much free capital and brainwashing received

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

pacerier1y ago

> finite

Sure, everything is finite, but 8 billion is too little. Earth can fit 8 trillion and more, all we need is more science.

aucisson_masque1y ago

That's a very optimistic way to think. But every new technology brings its set of failure and danger.

For instance energy: petrol -> pollution, nuclear energy-> tchernobil, danger currently in Ukraine with the war, ...

Food : fertilizer -> water pollution and eutrophication

Housing: more home -> less free soil to retain water, insane flooding.

And so on, and so on.

Anyway by the time we reach 8 trillion, a nuclear war surely would have already started and wiped us all

pacerier1y ago

> set of failure and danger

Then what you need is moar science. 10x, 100x, 999999

Log_out_1y ago

science is very much limited by human ability to not regress to violence when limited when h^n meets the l*r there be carnage without modifications .

pacerier1y ago

all we need is more science.. and religion

eddd-dddeOP1y ago

Maybe, but what's the point ? If science improves shouldn't we aim for less population?

pacerier1y ago

why production? environmental? nature? Who cares about these things more than caring about humans [and happiness thereof]?

Sure I want less people and more earth to myself too, but if everyone [overall] wants as many free kids as they can afford, how on earth are you going to end up with having less people?

A girl's maximum happiness is directly correlated with the number of children she has. regardless of how much free capital and brainwashing received

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse