Hacker News Reader

Comment by Denzel | Hacker News Reader

Please explain to me how anything you said leads to the conclusion "it's a zero sum game". Literally, nothing of what you said even supports that conclusion. I fear you don't understand what zero sum means or rather you don't understand why it wouldn't apply in this case.

View on HN

Yes, that was a bad analogy, sorry. What I wanted to say really: overpopulation is at the root of all the planet's troubles.

For example, "There’s a strong chance a third of all people on earth will be African by 2100":

https://qz.com/africa/1099546/population-growth-africans-wil...

What could go wrong ?

Sure that's less hyperbolic and more reasonable. And I can appreciate how someone can arrive to the conclusion that overpopulation represents a significant problem.

Thanks for updating your wording.

You seem to be assuming that lines of growth continue in one direction forever. They do not.

In 1900, the population of Sweden was about 5M, and the birth rate was 4.02 (which was already falling from its historic average of around 5.0). In the 19th century, 20% of the population fled to the US to escape famine. Today, the population is around 10M, and the birth rate is 1.79. Sweden was pretty typical of Europe, pre-WWI.

Would you have said "What could go wrong?" when talking about Europe's birth rate and population growth a century ago? No? Then why be afraid of the same pattern in Africa?

Population growth today is mostly a function of increased life expectancy and drastically reduced child mortality rates. Low child mortality has led to reduced birth rates everywhere, to the point where most industrialized nations have negative growth (discounting immigration). The birth rate has already leveled off globally. It will level off in Africa, too, and the population will stabilize. A century from now, Africa will have zero population growth.

I'm not seeing what's inherently wrong with Africans to be honest. In fact I feel like these malthusian arguments often have a racialized tinge to them

The amount of carbon and methane being released into the air, resources being gobbled up, deforestation, and pollution, is already too much. That's why it's a zero sum game, in order to get the things everyone wants, you have to out-earn, guilt, or legislate away somebody else's. It might not exactly match the concept, but it's close enough, much like the old free speech in privately owned public spaces debate.

No. Economies aren't even close to matching the concept of a zero-sum game. By definition they don't match the concept of a zero-sum game. Need more information? I suggest you read up on what a production possibility frontier (PPF) is. [1]

Technology invalidates the very idea of a zero-sum economy. If tomorrow we reach a breakthrough in fusion energy and are able to deliver all the energy the world needs at several order of magnitudes less cost, material, and space... well then we just gave a lot and took very little -- the pie grew -- the possibilities grew. It's not zero-sum.

Listen, simply decrying "zero-sum" doesn't make an argument anymore intelligent. You must seek to understand the concept and basis underlying the words you use. Only then does their true explanatory power become accessible.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production%E2%80%93possibility...

I know that this doesn't add to understanding of zero-sum games, but I think knowledge of zero-sum games adds to understanding of this issue. The only downside to mentioning zero-sum games is that it might attract pedants. I see you have no interest in discussing the topic at hand, just in berating people for not having the same standards of discourse as you.

As to how the zero sum game improves understanding: It's competition in a resource-constrained environment. I don't want to stick to strict economic theory and assume that wealth creation solves this issue. We've seen that people aren't satisfied by their phones, apps, food and entertainment choices, and high-tech gadgets that people in the past could only dream of. If anything it makes people want more. All the things mentioned, the house, the car, the kids, world travel, are goals people have that don't appear to have satisfying alternatives that don't use up a lot of resources or pollute the environment.

Real estate definitely is a zero sum game, unless you create new libertarian island platforms floating in the ocean.

Good education is a zero sum game (free places at ivy league for example).

Health care has waiting lists in some countries.

The whole idea that the "pie gets bigger" because even homeless people can now have cheap electronic gadgets is deeply flawed, but perhaps it is in the interest of some people to create the illusion of progress.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com