Hacker News Reader

Comment by sahreeg | Hacker News Reader

I completely agree with you. In terms of population alone, we are exceedingly multiplying; something that might not be of out best advantage. More even when you consider that there will be less opportunities for an increasing number of people, and we will lose this personal freedom you spoke of -to an extent-

I am also pro child limit laws. I would suggest nothing too strict, just impose a tax on the third child and up. We know from psychology that little restrictions and the mere fact of a 'cost' would reduce the intrinsic desire of people to even take an action, in this case child bearing. Furthermore, I think a tax is a not an extreme measure, considering the fact that you would still be allowed to have children if you want. But do keep in mind that the poorest, less educated are often the ones to have plenty of children, which ends up harming the family, this might be good for them.

View on HN

Human ingenuity is the world's greatest resource and leads to wealth creation and advancement of living standards. Limiting population growth would be ill-advised.

I suggest you read up on the carrying capacity of Earth.

I would put any research or estimates into perspective. We have well surpassed predicted carrying capacities, but maybe these estimates are different?

Example:

> In a 1994 study titled Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, David Pimentel and Mario Giampietro estimated the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million

The dangers of over-population myth assumes a naive view of a static society. For instance, we can reasonably have X land for food production, from that we can grow Y food and that can feed Z people so anything above Z would be harmful. The problem is that Y is dependent on human innovation and technology. Same can be said for most resources. We never did reach peak oil.

These predictions of inevitable decline have been wrong for a long time. I don't know why you put so much faith into the modern day equivalents.

Additionally, Z is dependent on social and economic pressures. As the world becomes more urbanized, birth rates have been going down because it is becoming more expensive to raise children. This is occurring naturally without artificial limits imposed.

How is it that we're on a technology forum and people continually insist that we've achieved the maximum rate of advancement? Also we most certainly do not spend all of our resources advancing areas of technology that would sustain more people, for instance I think there could easily be more research put into food growth/production/sustainability and perhaps things like housing development than are currently being done, but since there is no impending doom from overpopulation we tend to spread our interests around as the free-ish market allows. Everything we produce isn't going to make it easier for more people to survive, but I'm sure much could be done if it became a priority.

Some of us wish we'd be smarter than free market and have the ability to allocate resources proactively, instead at the last possible minute, when prices finally start to reflect the impending doom. Noticing that Earth has a carrying capacity and that we have to do something about it (either stop growing, lower our footprint or extend that capacity) is expressing the belief that we can do better.

I didn't insist anything. I simply suggested reading about carrying capacity. It's a relevant topic to population control, and it could broaden his understanding of the issue.

The carrying capacity of Earth is seemingly revised constantly. The overpopulation crisis we imagined decades ago never materialized.

The "carrying capacity" of earth is well, well above (constantly revised) estimates.

What will need to change is the efficiency of how we as a species make use of the earth. We can feed many times the current world population easily. We can house many times the current world population easily. What we can't accomplish is doing those things the same way we do things now.

Advances in agriculture, energy and housing are needed. Advances which are happening as we furiously type at each other.

Either we all die horribly or we'll all be fine.

While in essence I agree, I think it is much more nuanced and complicated.

Inequality seems to be deeply encoded in the system. Capacity, in my opinion, only makes sense if you extrapolate from an average human, but there is no such thing as an average human being. However, I don't think it is an exaggeration that our western way of life is not sustainable on a global scale. I wish the fruits of human ingenuity could be enjoyed by every single one of us, but unfortunately it seems utopian.

In what year was the average, or even marginal person better off? Yes, there may be more income distribution, but would you prefer to be born into a different time under the veil of ignorance?

Even the poorest in our society have incredible access to goods.

Just to list a few:

Wikipedia

Ability to talk to relatives from across the world to little or no cost (Skype and alternatives)

Ability to send money and store wealth cheaply (low cost ETFs, bitcoin, free checking)

Social acceptance of previously marginalized lifestyles

Access to wide variety of foods and entertainment

There has never been a better time to be alive, and I expect that to continue, despite greater inequality.

That is, if the population growth doesn't destabilize the economies and make us revert back to the old times. That's the crux of the issue. The rising tide is lifting all the boats, but we need to make sure the tide keeps rising.

The problem with this line of thinking is that "someone in the future will fix our problems" doesn't inspire much assurance.

Some believe we should limit growth now, thus potentially preventing the problem before it becomes, well, a problem.

Nobody is suggesting nobody has children. People will still be born, discoveries made etc.

As much as I agree that the earth is overpopulated, I think better than taxing people is providing access to free birth control. A lot of people don't have access to it, or education about it.

Having many children is an economic issue, not access-to-birth-control issue. Poor families in third world countries will continue to mass-produce children because they can't afford not to. For the contraception to be used, we need to raise them out of poverty first.

I think lack of ability to plan when and if you have a family is a contributor to poverty in many places. Children are expensive and time consuming.

I've noticed here in the USA young girls getting pregnant and not being able to pursue higher education. I've also met some of my family in the Philippines who had many children by age 14. The husband's salary would pretty much all go to the children, and the wife would spend all day taking care of them. They are just trying to survive day to day-- little thought was given to trying to reach for anything higher.

Most people with access to birth control have children-- just when they're more ready for it. Not only does this make them more financially steady, but they are happier, and the same goes for their children.

"I find suggestive evidence that individuals’ access to contraceptives increased their children’s college completion, labor force participation, wages, and family incomes decades later." - Martha J. Bailey, an economics professor at the University of Michigan. Here's the article and link to her work. http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/09/the-long-term-effects-of-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com