Hacker News Reader

Given our ever-expanding definition of "environmentally unfriendly" and our ever-contracting definition of "sustainable", I'm actually not sure that anything actually makes the cut in the long run.

Everything "effects the environment" in some way, after all.

View on HN

This is more or less the argument of various population-reduction advocates. There's simply no way, with current or foreseeable technology, to sustain 8 billion humans AND still have a planet left a few centuries later.

If we want there to be humans in the far, far future, more of us need to start going childfree NOW, and encouraging others to do so, AND working on sustainable ways to have a decent standard of living without eviscerating the Earth.

The problem being that everybody always wants to force someone else to be the one to have no children and a crappy standard of living, while they get to be one of the people selected to remain.

Welcome to the degrowth mindset, where anything that represents technological innovation by mankind is perforce evil and must be stamped out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com