Its incredible that we are asleep on the wheel on this with little media coverage and no policy goals despite freefalling testosterone levels and rising miscarriages. This amounts to a silent social and biological experiment on our entire population.
This is an argument that most people come to an initial conclusion for.
Unfortunately economics doesn’t work this way.
You need a steady supply of new borns to support and be providers / producers who then in turn take care of the elderly this is the way society works and has for centuries.
A countries work output is determined to some large degree by their population size.
Just look at Japan and see how it stagnated as a world super power. Almost a century ago Japan was poised to be a world super power just like the US.
A steady supply of producers is also an increasing number of consumers. At what point is that unsustainable? Which is more important in the long run, the competition to be a "world super power" or having a livable planet 1000 years from now? If economics is more a human invention and less a fundamental law of the universe, maybe "economics doesn't work this way" is something we can change.
I am confused by what point you are trying to make, do you want us to live in the dark ages?
Do country foreign policy relations just suddenly disappear?
How does this plan for ending consumption work in your mind?
It is actually not okay because like many things in nature we see a resilience that allows whatever process to continue but that could suddenly end. Also things tend to get worse at an exponential rate so although it may not be horrible now we may be heading towards something much bigger and worse. We have plenty of room on earth we just don’t do a good job of allocating resources.
I hate that argument. I Absolutely despise it. Right now you have a defeatist's attitude.
Imagine you're standing in front of a bear cage. Imagine if that bear cage was going to open in the next ten seconds. Imagine there was a button on the wall that you could press to keep that cage closed. Would you press it? Would you want other people to be able to press it if they were your situation?
The example doesn't even have to be that drastic, imagine any good or bad consequence at all. It would be advantageous to have a button that controls whether it happens. Right now we are not in control and humans have always striven to have control.
My sense of self-preservation it not just for me - I feel it for all of humanity, present and future. If you still disagree with me that's fine but if you're going to be logically consistent while espousing the belief that humanity shouldn't exist because we use too many resources the generous thing to do would be to off yourself first. Please don't though, instead help the rest of us figure out a way for more humans to live happily while improving our current world. There is no reason we can't. None. We just haven't figured it out.
I find this line of though particularly strange too. Right now you have an extremely optimistic attitude.
I'm not sure why hoping for the best is supposed to be a wise decision when we're talking about basic things like 'survival of the human race' and whatnot.
I'm also rather uncertain how your 'caged bear button' example is relevant here. The only dangerous bear I can see in this context is the overuse of resources. In which case the example seems to be advocating that the best course of action is to expose people to the danger by default, unless people take constant action to keep the danger contained. I'm not sure how this argument is supposed to attack the "keep populations controlled" line of thought.
At any rate, the obvious solution here seems to do both. Figure out how we can reasonably and ethically keep populations in the range we know we can support, while at the same time working to expand that limit. We don't have to pick one or the other. If you believe this to be a real problem, it seems reckless to simply hope we figure it out before the problem becomes too serious.
I don't think I'm being extremely optimistic. We're figuring out how to capture carbon at high rates, we're figuring out safe fission reactors, we're realizing that plastic and many of its uses are bad for the environment, we're about to be a multi-planetary species. There are still lots of problems but it's not like they can't be overcome.
>I'm also rather uncertain how your 'caged bear button' example is relevant here. The only dangerous bear I can see in this context is the overuse of resources. In which case the example seems to be advocating that the best course of action is to expose people to the danger by default, unless people take constant action to keep the danger contained. I'm not sure how this argument is supposed to attack the "keep populations controlled" line of thought.
The dangerous bear in this case is our reproductive capabilities declining. A human that is prevented from coming into existence when it would normally be able to is the same as removing an existing one.
We will solve it, we just need to start and provide incentives for it.
And blockchain can allow us to coordinate at hitherto unheard of scales, which opens the door to massive acceleration of economic and technological development.
I'd call that at least fairly optimistic. We're working on technology, but it hasn't materialized yet. Even if it does materialize sooner rather than later, we have no particular guarantee the political will to utilize the technology will exist.
I'm still confused about the bear. How is a human not existing a danger to others? A human not existing is really only dangerous to the human race once it reaches some critical mass that will essentially prevent any new humans from existing. I don't see how this is at all analogous to unleashing a bear in a populated street. Each instance is inherently not dangerous by itself. You can't say that for the bear.
By that reasoning, why should we do anything to reduce green house gas production or any kind of pollution? We'll figure out how to remove it from the environment or make it otherwise non-harmful eventually. May as well go full steam ahead now in that case, right?
I also highly contest the notion that preventing a human from coming into existence is anything like removing an existing one. If you were forced to chose between killing somebody or destroying a viable embryo scheduled for implantation, would you seriously have all that much trouble deciding?
> Its incredible that we are asleep on the wheel on this with little media coverage and no policy goals despite freefalling testosterone levels and rising miscarriages.
Testosterone levels are rising again from reported lows a few years ago, and you probably don't want them too high because men would leave their wives.
Your testosterone levels lower themselves once you're married and have kids, so that you'll focus on raising them and not leave to start a second family, or get yourself killed in a fight, etc.
I'm getting more and more convinced that I don't want to bring a kind into this world. By the time they grow up, they'll have so many pressures to deal with. Climate change, high levels of debt and the worst of all, support all these entitled old people who would still want young people to farm and feed.
I grew up under the threat of nuclear war. Someone in Russia could have pushed a button, and I would have died in 15 minutes. I knew that was the case, too. And yet, for me at least, it's always been good to be alive, even despite the threat that hung over me for far too many years.
Anecdote, but... some of us found life worth living under worse pressures.
Invariably having your children addicted to technology and media with the fear of missing out. This idea that there is "something happening online and I must know".
So many people I know struggling to have kids.. we’re out of touch with our natural environment.. pandemic, infertility, other things I won’t even mention for fear of downvote/cancelled but are considered “woke”..
Well wake up folks.. or sterile-ize yourself out of existence
You're free to live a socialist life within capitalism. Just join an Amish community, or buy some land in a remote region where land is cheap, and create a commune with like-minded idealists.
You really segued there to this 'exploitation' charge..
How is the freedom to engage in profit-motived activity exploitation? The whole principle behind the free market is that all interactions have to be mutually voluntary in order to be legal. Any action that is not, and that can be proven to not be in a court of law, is treated under the law as either a contract breach, or a criminal offence.
Are you suggesting that interacitons that are non-consensual are occurring, that a court of law cannot prove are non-consensual, but yet you can?
The problem is not everyone is intermittent-fasting alongside a keto diet and using red light therapy, ashwagandha, meditating, deadlifting, and microdosing psilocybin.
58 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 135 ms ] threadUnfortunately economics doesn’t work this way.
You need a steady supply of new borns to support and be providers / producers who then in turn take care of the elderly this is the way society works and has for centuries.
A countries work output is determined to some large degree by their population size.
Just look at Japan and see how it stagnated as a world super power. Almost a century ago Japan was poised to be a world super power just like the US.
How does this plan for ending consumption work in your mind?
Imagine you're standing in front of a bear cage. Imagine if that bear cage was going to open in the next ten seconds. Imagine there was a button on the wall that you could press to keep that cage closed. Would you press it? Would you want other people to be able to press it if they were your situation?
The example doesn't even have to be that drastic, imagine any good or bad consequence at all. It would be advantageous to have a button that controls whether it happens. Right now we are not in control and humans have always striven to have control.
My sense of self-preservation it not just for me - I feel it for all of humanity, present and future. If you still disagree with me that's fine but if you're going to be logically consistent while espousing the belief that humanity shouldn't exist because we use too many resources the generous thing to do would be to off yourself first. Please don't though, instead help the rest of us figure out a way for more humans to live happily while improving our current world. There is no reason we can't. None. We just haven't figured it out.
I'm not sure why hoping for the best is supposed to be a wise decision when we're talking about basic things like 'survival of the human race' and whatnot.
I'm also rather uncertain how your 'caged bear button' example is relevant here. The only dangerous bear I can see in this context is the overuse of resources. In which case the example seems to be advocating that the best course of action is to expose people to the danger by default, unless people take constant action to keep the danger contained. I'm not sure how this argument is supposed to attack the "keep populations controlled" line of thought.
At any rate, the obvious solution here seems to do both. Figure out how we can reasonably and ethically keep populations in the range we know we can support, while at the same time working to expand that limit. We don't have to pick one or the other. If you believe this to be a real problem, it seems reckless to simply hope we figure it out before the problem becomes too serious.
>I'm also rather uncertain how your 'caged bear button' example is relevant here. The only dangerous bear I can see in this context is the overuse of resources. In which case the example seems to be advocating that the best course of action is to expose people to the danger by default, unless people take constant action to keep the danger contained. I'm not sure how this argument is supposed to attack the "keep populations controlled" line of thought.
The dangerous bear in this case is our reproductive capabilities declining. A human that is prevented from coming into existence when it would normally be able to is the same as removing an existing one.
We will solve it, we just need to start and provide incentives for it.
I'm still confused about the bear. How is a human not existing a danger to others? A human not existing is really only dangerous to the human race once it reaches some critical mass that will essentially prevent any new humans from existing. I don't see how this is at all analogous to unleashing a bear in a populated street. Each instance is inherently not dangerous by itself. You can't say that for the bear.
By that reasoning, why should we do anything to reduce green house gas production or any kind of pollution? We'll figure out how to remove it from the environment or make it otherwise non-harmful eventually. May as well go full steam ahead now in that case, right?
I also highly contest the notion that preventing a human from coming into existence is anything like removing an existing one. If you were forced to chose between killing somebody or destroying a viable embryo scheduled for implantation, would you seriously have all that much trouble deciding?
Testosterone levels are rising again from reported lows a few years ago, and you probably don't want them too high because men would leave their wives.
https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1372192564053430279
It's essentially impossible to stay away from contaminants now.
There have to be variations globally we can find. Although, the cause seems rather obvious, the only unclear part is the magnitude of effect.
No more need for birth controls?
Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26221925 - Feb 2021 (601 comments)
Falling sperm counts could threaten the human race - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26275527 - Feb 2021 (28 comments)
Anecdote, but... some of us found life worth living under worse pressures.
to whom will your child be indebted?
Stay sedentary
Sit at your desk
Stare at screen
Work excessively
Eat unhealthy foods
Live in synthetic material homes
Stay disconnected from yourself emotionally
Drink coco cola, alcoholic, party all night,
Stay overweight.. obese
...
So many people I know struggling to have kids.. we’re out of touch with our natural environment.. pandemic, infertility, other things I won’t even mention for fear of downvote/cancelled but are considered “woke”..
Well wake up folks.. or sterile-ize yourself out of existence
This is a byproduct of capitalism. Get rid of it and this stops too.
How is the freedom to engage in profit-motived activity exploitation? The whole principle behind the free market is that all interactions have to be mutually voluntary in order to be legal. Any action that is not, and that can be proven to not be in a court of law, is treated under the law as either a contract breach, or a criminal offence.
Are you suggesting that interacitons that are non-consensual are occurring, that a court of law cannot prove are non-consensual, but yet you can?
/s
If infertility is a growing issue aren't fatility treatments compounding the problem, by treating the symptoms rather that the cause?
Population growth might be good for economic reasons, but it's not sustainable from a environmental perspective.