Hacker News Reader

Comment by QAPereo | Hacker News Reader

The only way is population control, and how does that work outside of nightmares and cautionary tales from history?

Great Filter here we come.

its really hard to have a serious conversation about population control. It's just one of those topics that immediately label you as some kind of crazy murdering nut-job in the eyes of lots of people.

Honestly, it may not have been super effective for certain reasons, but China's child limit laws are about the least crazy solution I can think of.

Population control probably isn't necessary. No one (informed) thinks that the human population is going to grow out of control. It's likely to become stable at around 10-11 billion within 100 years. Birth rates are declining in developed countries and the undeveloped world is rapidly developing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...

It isn’t necessary only if massive inequality persists, and our tech just plain saves us all. What a crazy fucking bet when the stakes are the future of human civilization.

Honestly, evolution says that it won't. Long-term, breeders will "out-compete" those that limit their household size. Without external political forces or wholesale genetic engineering, we're in for a rough ride.

There are various examples where breeders did not outcompete, and instead a population settled on a low birth rate. Any animal that is not predator-dominated, really, but the best-known examples are New Zealands Kakapo [1] and Panda bears [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakapo#Breeding [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda#Reproduction

Hans Rosling has done some research and ted talks about this: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_...

> stable at around 10-11 billion within 100 years

but is that small enough or soon enough to avoid environmental catastrophe?

I think many people probably like the idea, but are worried about implementation.

Example: I think everyone should be sterilized at birth, but it should be reversible at no cost to them. But I can't think of a single government that I'd trust to enact this policy correctly without falling into a Eugenics system.

Surely that is an argument about how resources should be allocated? Should resources go to a large number of poorer people or a smaller number of more wealthy people?

Also, the catch is that development tends to reduce population growth. India (for example) may be growing rapidly now, but if they succeed in eliminating poverty then population will stabalise at some point. People will simply have fewer kids. So why not just wait until population stabalises naturally?

We don’t really have until “some point” especially when Indians and Chinese people all understandably want a slice of what the West largely has hoarded; luxury. Spread that over 7-11 billion and we’re just screwed barring miraculous new tech. Granted that people want and probably deserve roughly equal lives, the only viable solution is to spread the resources out over fewer people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com