Comment by akudha | Hacker News Reader

Comment by akudha | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I too have no car, zero commute, maybe take one flight every other year etc. I still think we should stabilize human population. I don't know what is the maximum number of humans mother earth can support without completely fucking up the planet, but I don't want to find out. Do you?

I don't have kids and don't plan to have. Nobody is forcing me not to have kids, in fact the opposite. I am the black sheep of my family and social circle, people look at me weird for not having kids (not that I care).

The problem with asking people to live responsibly is that it hasn't worked so far. Ever tried asking a meat eater to reduce a tiny bit of their meat consumption? Another issue is that even if it worked, it will take a long time for people to change their habits. We should of course educate people about responsible living, but we should also remember that it is a long, hard process.

I don't know what the solution is, but we are at a point that we should try everything we can think of, including asking people to have less kids, live responsibly etc etc

I grew up eating meat twice a day and quite like the taste. I cut that to once a week (and ramping down) once I understood the co2 numbers. I have always been carless but was naive with regard to diet. Dairy is now the WIP.

Turns out I also quite like tofu, falafels and soy crumble.

This is basically the problem. To constrain human growth so it is sustainable requires a lot of limitations.

Environmentalism is unfortunately a liberal issue, not a conservative one (or an all-people one which is fundamentally is), population controls is basically a war on the poor, especially in the modern world, and that policy can't coexist in the liberal sphere right now.

Environmentalism historically is basically conflict with corporations, and was really about localized environmentalism (pollution of a lake, etc), or it was a small number of corporations (CFCs for ozone).

Global warming and species destruction is a totally different ballgame politically.

Constraining human growth seems to be very easy, though, and requires /more freedom/ not less: Increase access to education, reproductive freedom, and career opportunities.

This trifecta has brought reproduction below the replacement rate in large parts of the globe. US population goes up only via immigration.

But that's already factored into projected population growth. We still end up with a 1-2+ billion more people for the next century or so before the replacement rate is negative.

So... Do it more. Places with good access to education and family planning /already have/ negative population growth rates. The problem is uneven access, and that's something that can be worked on.

Open borders to move people more quickly into more-developed countries, and increase funding and pressure for initiatives to raise standards in other countries.

I don't see that working. Right wing has been on the rise the past few years and countries like Japan didn't have a decent immigration system to begin with. Racism was a big factor in Brexit vote too. It just seems that with every passing year, immigration (even for well educated and qualified people) is becoming more and more difficult (even before covid), the opposite of what we need.

Here's the rub, all the things you're asking for cost way more energy and produce way more carbon than being third-world poor.

Environmentalism as currently practiced is a liberal issue, but protecting the environment is a deeply conservative notion - the mechanisms by which it is achieved may differ, though.

Margaret Thatcher, a Conservative to her core, raised environmental issues on the world stage and worked for action well before it was a politically fashionable cause.

British Conservatism != American Conservatism.

Not even close.

> Environmentalism is unfortunately a liberal issue

Only the "performative" kind. Conservatives are quite in favor of nuclear power for example, which is arguably the most "environmental" thing one can be in favor of. What they are against are reductions in business caused by higher energy prices, and worse quality of life. Both are a hard sell in the long term unless you're just virtue signaling and lower QOL and higher cost of living won't affect you (that is if you're Leo DiCaprio, Al Gore, or John Kerry for example).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com