Hacker News Reader

Comment by AtlasBarfed | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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