Hacker News Reader

Comment by mytailorisrich | Hacker News Reader

These are all marginal issues.

Even at the current level of population demand on resources is too great and will be massively too great if poverty is eradicated (as it should).

The long term solution for both the environment and people's quality of life (I don't think that not being able to travel, not being able to eat what one wants, having to live in a small flat in a dense city with mass transit only is a good life) is not only to have an objective to cut emission but to also have an objective to cut population.

Now, that is a very sensitive topic and so everyone prefers to ignore it.

View on HN

>The long term solution for both the environment and people's quality of life is not only to have an objective to cut emission but to have an objective to cut population. > >Now, that is a very sensitive topic and so everyone prefers to ignore it.

No. You are ignoring that countries whose population is increasing are, per capita, not emitting much. Please compare the eqCO2 per capita in Africa vs Europe or USA. If we ask a minority to curb their pollution, we can easily fix the climate problem. But those who emit the most ask everyone to not have children... because they refuse to change their behavior. This is a sensitive topic only to the minority that is responsible for the catastrophe.

Again, I beg your to research who are polluting more that what our ecosystems can endure and tell me why we should block human beings from procreating vs asking the culprits to curb their crazy consumption/pollution and leave the rest of the world alone.

> You are ignoring that countries whose population is increasing are, per capita, not emitting much

No I'm not and this is what makes the situation worse.

When people get richer they consume more. This is not only about CO2 per se but all resources. Global population growth has been a driver for both CO2 emissions and demand on all resources, but this is also compounded by reduction in poverty.

Imagine a world where all humans consumed as much as a Western European, or even worse an American, today: This would be much, much worse than our current situation.

So unless we want to live in 1984 meets The Matrix in order to drastically limit consumption of resources then we need to get the population down so that every human can enjoy a good life in a thriving environment.

I must say I don't understand why there seems to be a taboo on this.

> asking the culprits to curb their crazy consumption/pollution and leave the rest of the world alone.

It's not "us vs them". We are all on the same boat. The poorest do not want to remain poor, and rightly so. Everyone should have the right to reach highest living standard possible.

>When people get richer they consume more. This is not only about CO2 per se but all resources.

Why would that be inevitable? I mean, you're asking to prevent people from having children! I bet it's easier to ask people to not pollute (even as they get richer) than not to have the family they want.

I, for one, I've become multimillionaire in the last decade (thank you, neoliberalism /s) while cutting my carbon footprint in more than 3. It was much easier to do that than changing my family's plans. By the way, going vegetarian makes you richer but also not flying too, not buying a bigger house and a bigger car, etc.

Being richer does not require to pollute more even if this has been the case until now, but again, we're also having more children so why would you want fewer people polluting more when we could be free to have the family we want and be responsible?

So you're becoming richer but sacrifice yourself and stash the money under your bed? Because if you're spending the money you're consuming and thereby contributing to the pressure on the environment. That does not make much sense to me as a way of life.

You also do not seem to realise how much more you're already consuming compared to the poor on this planet. If everyone was consuming as much as your family is then the environment would be in even worse shape than it is now.

If we want poverty eradicated and everyone to enjoy a high standard of living then consumption per capita has to increase globally. My belief is that everyone has the right to have a high standard of living and to enjoy greenery, nature, living space. The only way this is sustainable is if the number of people decreases to compensate.

There is a massive difference between spending my money taking my kids to the local open farm with shows, animals to pet etc or if I spend the same money hosting a party with lots of junk decorations that gets thrown away afterwards.

Same with spending my money creating a house that is well insulated and built to last vs skipping on quality and adding lots of high maintenance luxuries.

Even just keeping the money and investing it you can do something right just by vetting and prioritizing funds with a proven good profile.

> There is a massive difference between spending my money taking my kids to the local open farm with shows, animals to pet etc or if I spend the same money hosting a party with lots of junk decorations that gets thrown away afterwards.

This strikes me as a very "first world problems" view of things.

What I meant is that there is a massive difference in consumption levels (both in term of energy and resources) between you and I living our comfy Western lives and the life of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of human beings on the poorest end of the scale.

Just a drive to the supermarket for our weekly shop probably consumes more energy and resources than months of consumption for some people on this planet.

Those people have the right to be lifted out of poverty and to enjoy a high standard of living, like we have the right to enjoy those standards but this is not realistic with 8 billion people. It's simply wrong IMHO to condemn humanity to restrictions and sacrifices, so if we want everyone to be 'rich' and save the planet at the same time the only solution is to aim at cutting population significantly.

This starts by a paradigm shift, we must accept that population cannot keep growing and should in fact decrease. Then adapt to that as it has fundamental impacts on the economy and social fabric.

Yep. I live in the first world and have forst world problems as - I assume - does the person you originally replied to and - I guess - you too.

Point is you cannot condemn the person you replied without knowing them.

I can make a huge difference with small changes without making neither nyself nor my kids into laughing stock.

If my lifestyle results in 50%, 25% or even just 10% lower CO2 releases that is huge compared to what is possible for others.

Thinking about the fact that maybe I still release much more CO2 than the average Nigerian isn't productive and doesn't do anything good.

I'll keep doing the things I can:

- keep my hobbies smart (I repair stuff, create software and grow fruit and vegetables at home and together with friends on a patch on a nearby farm)

- cook food from scratch

- teach my kids not to waste

- teach my kids the joy of simple things like hiking and tenting

- when time permits: shooting at the local shooting range

- when it existed: volunteer at the local refugee center

- and other inexpensive, interesting activities that aren't crazy wasteful.

Start with the entirely unnessecary carniverous apex predators (aka pets) people insist on keeping. If people cant get rid of pets, then asking them to avoid replicating their own DNA is going to be a challenge.

I upvoted you, but do keep in mind that there is a lot of loneliness and some of those animals probably save us from lots of healthcare expenses. Not everything can be brought down to simple economics.

That said I have said no to dogs myself - mostly because of cost and the constant need to be looled after - and the animal we do have is a rodent that we got second hand, meaning that food cost is leftover carrot shavings etc + a bit of hay

Have you considered that for many people have pets because they don't have/can't have/don't want children? Compared to an actual human child, the footprint of a pet is quite minimal and their lifespans are short.

Well, if we need to change our diet, give up pets, give up travelling, give up individual travel in general, etc. then I think that proves the point I'm trying to make.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com