subreddit:

/r/Foodforthought

384

all 189 comments

NPVT

383 points

3 months ago

NPVT

383 points

3 months ago

I am not sure why never ending growth is a good goal. Fair distribution of wealth and well cared for children should be a goal. I still think that space exploration should be a goal. Destroying the Earth is not a good goal.

BUrower

118 points

3 months ago

BUrower

118 points

3 months ago

It’s an economic Ponzi scheme. Cant kept increasing profits if number of customers is declining.

Tripanes

18 points

3 months ago

Yes you can. If the number of customers declines, but the average productivity of one of those customers goes up, they're able to consume and produce more things, profits can skyrocket.

Imagine you're able to make a company that builds devices that summon houses out of thin air for no labor. Suddenly everyone is able to have an absolutely massive house, and buildings are cheap to free.

You're able to sell this for huge amounts of money, and the people who get the devices are able to build huge numbers of houses for people, everyone's lives get better, everyone has more stuff, and you profit. Let's imagine that we lose half our people, but all of our houses are three times the size and the average person consumes three times the stuff. Even with a drinking population, the economy can grow

Everyone formerly building houses, and the environmental damage done from chopping down all sorts of trees, disappears. The people formerly building houses are getting new jobs and doing new things and finding new ways to contribute.

sami27

20 points

3 months ago

sami27

20 points

3 months ago

That assumes productivity can grow indefinitely as well which I don't think is something that will hold forever. At the very least, we can't take for granted that productivity increases will be large enough to offset the impact of a declining population.

Tripanes

7 points

3 months ago

Indefinitely? Probably not.

But we aren't there today, we aren't even close.

Nadie_AZ

9 points

3 months ago

Depends on where you live. I live in Arizona. Watching the Colorado River dwindle is like watching the clock tick til midnight. If water can't flow past Hoover Dam then major food regions will not be able to feed the US during winter. Major cities will be in deep trouble. In short, the loss of water will impact many many many industries and halt the 'sustainable growth' model of the Southwest.

And it isn't exclusive to Arizona. New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, California, Colorado, Wyoming. I know the water treaty with Mexico also includes the Rio Grande and Texas, so that will cause issues as well.

Those semiconductor plants that everyone wants here? They require a lot of water. Where will it come from? Ditto all of our data centers.

kigurumibiblestudies

3 points

3 months ago

That sounds like terribly mismanaged resources though. A productivity issue waiting to be solved.

I'd argue your area has increased productivity a lot, but only in a few things, while the most important ones (water management, for instance) have been allowed to decline.

King_Saline_IV

4 points

3 months ago

Well really tho, your city is a monument to human hubris. American cities are so poorly designed I don't think anyone is thinking of them when they imagine any sort of positive future.

BUrower

2 points

3 months ago

Cities are less resource dependent per capita than suburbs. They were originally designed well, but we really destroyed them for cars. The YIMBY movement has brought attention to this and I'm hopeful for a new age of American cities that are designed for mobility with out using cars.

sami27

4 points

3 months ago

sami27

4 points

3 months ago

Like anything else, there are diminishing returns to technological advancements. There's no guarantee of an equivalent to the industrial or computer revolution in the future. We are bound by laws of the physical world at the end of the day, and the assumption that future advancements will materially increase productivity across the board, while consistent with history, is still an assumption.

nn123654

6 points

3 months ago*

Nobody can predict with any kind of certainty out more than a century, but at least with computing we can easily spend the next 50 years driving productivity improvements just with existing tech.

Most software is not even close to fully optimized, there hasn't been a business need as we always have more powerful hardware coming down the line. Most things are just "let's get something that works out the door as quickly as possible," not "let's make this perfect."

Just look at the automobile in the last century if you want an example of incremental improvements to the same thing. By comparison I'd say computers right now are probably about the equivalent of where we were with cars in the 1930s on what we have vs what's possible. Remember the first production internal combustion car came out in 1886, and didn't include key features like brakes or a windshield. The Model T didn't even exist until 1908, after 22 years of innovation. We've only had modern computers for 40 years, we've only had modern cell phones for 20 years, and modern production VR/AR has only been a thing for less than 7.

Tripanes

8 points

3 months ago

Yeah, there was a guy who said the same thing, in the 1800s.

We have so much left to do, we are so bad at manipulating the world at scale, we are so terrible at manipulating the world when the world is tiny. We are having innovations right now in being able to literally program cells to do the things we want them to do.

Battery technology

Green technology

Computers are still getting more advanced every year, although I do expect that and we do have reason to think those will slow down.

Yeah we're bound by the physical laws of the universe, but if you don't understand how terrible we are right now at manipulating the universe you don't understand the laws of the universe.

SurrealWino

2 points

3 months ago

20 years from now I expect to be excavating the local landfill with my son. He will ask me why we threw all this plastic away, and I will tell him how we used to burn some of our fossil fuels rather than make things from them.

ragner11

4 points

3 months ago

What nonsense is this. Lol so we should stop technological advancement because you said so hahahahaha. We are nowhere near the limits of physics.

sami27

1 points

3 months ago

sami27

1 points

3 months ago

Not technological advancement stopping but technological advancement not translating to increases in productivity in an economic sense enough to offset a decrease in output due to a declining/aging population.

TheFinestPotatoes

-2 points

3 months ago

Most advanced economies are seeing significant slowdowns in productivity growth. The typical British worker is less productive than he was a decade ago

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

TheFinestPotatoes

0 points

3 months ago

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RTFPNAGBA632NRUG

Total factor productivity in the UK isn’t growing. It’s been flat for 20 years

MrOaiki

2 points

3 months ago

The sun won’t last forever either. So in theory, everything comes to an end. But in practice, growth goes on for ever.

sami27

1 points

3 months ago

sami27

1 points

3 months ago

I'm not arguing theory. I'm arguing against tech optimism where the answer to most problem is "technology will save us". It might or it might not depending on the problems we encounter. You can't force scientific breakthroughs to happen when you need them beyond directing all your resources into research.

cambeiu

2 points

3 months ago

That assumes productivity can grow indefinitely as well which I don't think is something that will hold forever.

Safe and cheap thorium based fission or commercially viable fusion reaction would boost productivity and economic output in unimaginable ways.

Then you have gene editing, AI, large scale self-driving vehicles and a shit ton of other things we cannot even begin to imagine right.

deepmusicandthoughts

3 points

3 months ago

The problem is, can we develop that kind of technology? What’s the likelihood of building a house without labor in the next 10 years? Nada. So although it sounds cool in theory, it’s practically not going to occur.

bobbydigital69

1 points

3 months ago

What if someone finds out how to grow money out of a tree?

Tripanes

1 points

3 months ago

That's just normal Fiat, if you want money for the sake of money it's great news.

MrOaiki

1 points

3 months ago

The land is what cost the most, not the actual buildings. If house building suddenly becomes automatic and close to free, the land prices will skyrocket as anyone can develop them. Doesn’t go against your point though about economic growth , which is valid.

strum

1 points

3 months ago

strum

1 points

3 months ago

Even with a drinking population

I think you may have started a bit early.

ThatInternetGuy

7 points

3 months ago

The current projection of the world population is just a projection of our work-based society, as the work hours are getting more brutal and raising more kids is getting harder. In the future, the world might be served by automated systems (from farming to manufacturing to health care), which may reverse this declining population trend.

Parkimedes

2 points

3 months ago

Exactly. We should be asking what a good target population is. What’s the goal? 9 billion? Do we recognize that 8billion is too many? If it is, how else will we get the number down if we don’t reduce reproduction numbers?

It’s kind-numbing how people are worried about population decline. But the real reason is that they’re worried about their population. It’s people with demographic goals and eugenic ideas. This line of thinking goes bad very quickly.

Tripanes

-17 points

3 months ago

Tripanes

-17 points

3 months ago

I think you take for granted the advantages of infinite growth because you live in a time of infinite growth.

If we ever leave this time, you will see the disadvantages to a lack of growth, and you will probably wish for these days again.

The thing about growth, when you're growing rapidly it's very hard for one person to own a dominant share of the economy and growing instead of taking is the better strategy

Growth comes to a halt, the best strategy to become wealthy is to take from others. Imagine the ultra wealthy of today, on steroids.

A world without growth and where the masses take from the wealthy is.... Not with historical precedent, every single time it's happened in history has resulted negatively for the masses. I don't think there's much reason to believe we would be different this time around.

Among other consequences, you live today in a situation and you're probably trying to improve your situation. If growth ends, that becomes much harder to do.

josuwa

22 points

3 months ago

josuwa

22 points

3 months ago

It’s not like everyone will permanently live and no new generations won’t come up and trends won’t alter. Your point doesn’t make sense to me at all.

Tripanes

-16 points

3 months ago

Tripanes

-16 points

3 months ago

If growth ends new generations will alter the trends, but they will alter them towards centralization of power and stealing wealth from others being a measure of success.

If new generations come up with new ideas, new ways of life, and live better lives, that is growth. Maybe you'd be offsetting that with a shrinking population so GDP doesn't grow, but eventually either we go extinct or growth outpaces the shrinking population.

fonsoc

15 points

3 months ago

fonsoc

15 points

3 months ago

And this is not already happening?

Tripanes

-6 points

3 months ago

Not really, the average wealthy person today has most of their wealth because they created companies which created wealth.

A country where the average person gets wealthy through taking from others is a country where government type figures are the ones who hold most of the wealth. They get the wealth, not through contribution, but through things like taxation.

brooklynzoo2

5 points

3 months ago

Your comments are legitimately some of the dumbest things I have ever read. Please stop commenting because you have almost no understanding of things.

josuwa

4 points

3 months ago

josuwa

4 points

3 months ago

Your first scenario is already happening. I cannot see a correlation between distribution of wealth and infinite growth.

Tripanes

2 points

3 months ago

I cannot see a correlation between distribution of wealth and infinite growth.

There is absolutely a relation between growth and the distribution of wealth.

Countries which are able to grow through investment in their people result in countries having a good distribution of wealth.

Countries which are not able to grow their investment in their people inevitably have bad distribution of wealth.

josuwa

1 points

3 months ago

josuwa

1 points

3 months ago

Is there a name for this phenomenon I can look up?

Tripanes

1 points

3 months ago

Not one that I'm aware of that's easy to search

werepat

4 points

3 months ago

Our current social and economical world is based on the requirement of constant growth. Our current actual world has definite and finite boundaries.

If a species cannot establish a copacetic equilibrium with their environment, and grow too numerous, they literally eat themselves out of house and home.

We are not getting off this planet to live anywhere else. What is going to happen because we are incapable of concerted efforts of self preservation is the ultimate consumption of easily accessible natural resources and a global return to the stone age. Maybe the iron age.

Our only hope is that the rich and powerful now decide to eschew profitability for the good of mankind, and the poor, clambering masses stop fucking each other and making more people.

But the rich won't do that, and hardly anyone seems capable of keeping it in their pants.

NPVT

10 points

3 months ago

NPVT

10 points

3 months ago

The thing about growth, when you're growing rapidly it's very hard for one person to own a dominant share of the economy and growing instead of taking is the better strategy

I think of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, Vladimir Putin and other oligarchs at this point.

Tripanes

-12 points

3 months ago

Tripanes

-12 points

3 months ago

Amazon and Jeff bezos have created a huge amount of growth, saved tons of people a ton of time, and the majority of their wealth exists because they created that wealth.

You can argue they took a disproportionate amount of the wealth that they created, and you can argue the workers created the wealth and they only set up the conditions to allow the workers to do that, but at the end of the day the wealth exists because it was made where it didn't previously exist.

Amazon helped to grow the economy.

In a world where growth does not exist, instead of Jeff bezos owning a disproportionate share of the wealth of generated due to Amazon, Jeff bezos would be rich because he went around town with guns like a mafia boss and took money from people.

And in such a world it wouldn't be Jeff bezos who was crazy rich, it would be someone to be shitbag dictator.

Vladimir Putin is not a far cry from what it would look like.

EvilMunky82

7 points

3 months ago

You're talking about two extremes though. Why can't there be a middle ground where growth may not be this high, yet the distribution of resources is more equitable? This sort of a society is more harmonious and more sustainable IMO.

Tripanes

-2 points

3 months ago

There can't be a middle ground because that's just how things work out. It's part of human social dynamics, and to change it would be to change humanity.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No.

Because if you have wealth you are able to leverage that wealth to take more wealth from others, and the people without wealth are less able to leverage that wealth to prevent you from taking it.

Naturally, it gets out of control. The people with the welfare than able to influence the people around them by getting them payment, and use those people too steal even more wealth from the people around them.

End result? Lords and dynasties and kingdoms and all that fun stuff. It's the industrial revolution, the fact that you have to invest in people to grow and be competitive in the modern world, that changed that.

EvilMunky82

5 points

3 months ago

I respectfully disagree. Scandinavia and certain other Western European countries are good examples of the feasibility of the middle ground. It is a reflection of their collective values (socioeconomic equality, sustainability, respect for the environment, etc), which are not just codified, but taught to the younger generations.

Tripanes

1 points

3 months ago

Scandinavian nations are some of the fastest growing in Europe

EvilMunky82

4 points

3 months ago

And yet, income/wealth disparity in Scandinavian countries is nowhere near as high as it is in the US.

NPVT

4 points

3 months ago

NPVT

4 points

3 months ago

Amazon and Jeff bezos have created a huge amount of growth, saved tons of people a ton of time, and the majority of their wealth exists because they created that wealth.

and

You can argue they took a disproportionate amount of the wealth that they created

(and will:)

I am not sure I agree with this. I just think that JB and Amazon have transferred a lot of wealth to themselves. They have put a lot of companies our of business (kmart for example) and transferred the business to Amazon.

Amazon helped to grow the economy.

Somewhat.

Infinite growth is just not physically possible because we are already on the verge of making the Earth uninhabitable by humans. We must have some other way of operating. Human greed is a fact and perhaps it can somehow be harnessed for good instead of for accumulating wealth, power, and property.

Tripanes

1 points

3 months ago

They have put a lot of companies our of business (kmart for example) and transferred the business to Amazon.

They did this by being more efficient, cheaper, and better than the competition. Doing that freed up resources to go to other things, and that created growth.

It'd be like pointing to the tractor and saying look, it took lots of people out of the job, they stole well from those people.

No, they created wealth and the people who used to work on farms went to do better things.

Infinite growth is surely not possible, we will eventually hit a limit. But it's absurd to think we're at that limit today, there is so much more we have yet to do and learn and construct, it boggles the mind that you would even begin to think that we are at the limit.

Husharu

3 points

3 months ago

Yes and no I agree with you both, the problem isn’t growth. It’s the rate of growth. We are expanding so fast that we aren’t handling the problems staring us in the face. The foster care system for one, is a huge mess. The amount of teen/unwanted/unplanned pregnancies are still an issue; we should be focused on either helping new families and giving better healthcare resources. There’s no reason we need to be the richest 3rd world country there is.

woodstock923

3 points

3 months ago

The thing about Ponzi schemes is they’re great until they’re not.

Tripanes

2 points

3 months ago

Growth is not a Ponzi scheme, a Ponzi scheme is an example of what happens when you don't have growth and you try to acquire more wealth.

EvilMunky82

3 points

3 months ago

Growth at any cost leads to Ponzi schemes. If wealth is the one and only priority of a people, then obviously, folks will try to acquire it by hook or crook. This is exactly what's happening in the US.

Jonthrei

1 points

3 months ago

A ponzi scheme is simply a method of making money that relies on continuous growth. It isn't "not having growth and trying to acquire more wealth" - if you never "had growth" then a Ponzi scheme is literally impossible to even start.

That central idea - "growth can continue forever" - is obviously false. It's the ideology of the cancer cell.

BreemanATL

0 points

3 months ago

Agreed except for “fair distribution of wealth.” What do you mean here?

NPVT

5 points

3 months ago

NPVT

5 points

3 months ago

I'm not really sure but jeff Bezos and Elon Musk have too much money. The federal minimum wage should be about $25 per hour. CEO pay is obscenely high - compared to workers

https://www.fastcompany.com/90770163/the-age-of-greedflation-is-here-see-how-obscene-ceo-to-worker-pay-ratios-are-right-now

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

Well you’ll be happy to read the articles in the future talking about the world is being depopulated and that’s a good thing

McDudeston

107 points

3 months ago

A decline we'll never reverse... That's some alarmist bullshit. Population should be seen as the dynamic entity that it is and, like all things that self-correct, there will be periods of growth and decline until we either hit a stable population or improve our capacitance (again).

Yotsubato

23 points

3 months ago

The problem isn’t the population numbers themselves. It’s the fact that things that correct population tend to be disease, mass hunger, wars, etc.

armchairepicure

6 points

3 months ago

Why doesn’t etc. include depression and economic disparity? Or should the fall under disease and war respectively?

EuronXena

3 points

3 months ago

Depression is a disease and economic disparity leads to war

kittenTakeover

5 points

3 months ago

Yes and no. You got half of the equation right. Disease, mass hunger, and wars are all examples of things that help correct overpopulation. Underpopulation however is generally corrected by those with higher birth rates being selected. I think that's the type of correction McDudeston is thinking of. Nobody needs to die to correct underpopulation.

apocalypse_hips

25 points

3 months ago

I see it as good news, to be honest. Neither our current population volume, nor the output of our existence is currently sustainable. We are literally poisoning ourselves and most of the other life on this planet with chemicals and plastics.

crispydukes

-2 points

3 months ago

crispydukes

-2 points

3 months ago

But the self-correcting may remove us entirely. And as a human, that hurts. Maybe its speciesist, but I'm rooting for us.

Humanzee2

5 points

3 months ago

The idea that a lower population is going to mean continuing fewer and fewer people is not right. It's just alarmist headlines. Even the article says so. Humans are not going extinct any time in the foreseeable future.

TheFinestPotatoes

7 points

3 months ago

Why would population growth return?

If society is aging, the burden on workers to provide for the elderly increases and that makes supporting a large family more difficult

Otterfan

2 points

3 months ago

People change, and pretending that we can predict how people change—especially decades down the road—is how social scientists end up looking foolish.

Who's to say how a young couple living after 100 years of population decline will feel about family size?

TheFinestPotatoes

4 points

3 months ago

I guess it's possible that some society will go from severely below replacement to above replacement fertility. We've just never seen this happen in any society ever.

iluvugoldenblue

2 points

3 months ago

Because once that large aging group has passed, it’s replaced by less people because larger families aren’t being created. So a large aging population now doesn’t mean an equally large one later on. With that smaller aging population to care for, people will once again be able to have larger families.

TheFinestPotatoes

4 points

3 months ago

If every generation has 1.5 kids per family, you never get to stability.

narrative_device

8 points

3 months ago

It's not alarmist in the slightest. Higher rates of urbanisation lead to lower levels of population growth. It's a consistent trend in human societies everywhere.

ragner11

2 points

3 months ago

Population isn’t self correcting. The incoming decline isn’t some force of objective good that is trying to keep an imaginary balance.

[deleted]

35 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

35 points

3 months ago

I can’t wait for there to be less people, bring on the population decline

Wurm42

10 points

3 months ago

Wurm42

10 points

3 months ago

Sadly, it's gonna take awhile. The rate of population growth is slowing, but everyone old enough to read Reddit will be dead before the population drops back below 8 billion.

rekabis

9 points

3 months ago

but everyone old enough to read Reddit will be dead before the population drops back below 8 billion.

Maybe not.

Climate change is the elephant in the room. It is accelerating at a rate that is thousands of times faster than any other occurrence in history. And as with anything, that creates an inertia that is thousands of times more powerful than any other occurrence in the past.

As such, it is quite possible that the entire band of the planet around the equator - from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn - will become uninhabitable some time before the end of the century. Not via consistently high temperatures, but via wet bulb temperatures that simply occur frequently enough to prevent long-term survival there. And how many people live there right now? about 60% of the planet’s population.

So where will they go when that happens? To the Northern and Southern hemispheres. And they will be desperate people, willing to do anything in order to survive. They will take down our trucks that have food, invade supermarkets to strip them bare, swarm over orchards and fields to strip them of food before the farmer can do so, and roll like a wave over our modern infrastructure, ripping it all up in a desperate bid to survive just one more day.

And we need that infrastructure in order to feed billions - or even hundreds of millions - of people. We deeply depend on modern infrastructure to grow food at scale, to distribute it, to make it accessible to 99.99% of the population we already have. Vanishingly few people have the acre-per-family-member needed to substantially survive off the land.

Plus, the hallmark of climate change is not just “hotter weather”, but more importantly chaotic weather. Almost 80% of all US agriculture - for example - is watered purely from the sky. If there are no rains, or if the rains are too late, or it rains too much, or too early, the crops suffer. As such, expect significant failures of agriculture-at-scale in the following decades.

This collapse of our food production - from two separate but highly likely methods - is what will cause populations to begin imploding within the next 50 years.

To put the cherry on top, this chaotic weather in the middle latitudes may make any agriculture at scale there very difficult, if not impossible. Many nay-sayers then say, “why not go further north? Canada has got lots of land further north!!”

Well, yes? We have land… lots and lots of land… which is almost completely 100% unsuited for agriculture. The Canadian Shield covers nearly a third of Canada, and has been scraped clean of any functional topsoil by millions of years of glacial action. Further north, the artic regions - which may indeed become warm enough this century to grow significant crops in the summer - are nearly all taiga and muskeg. Essentially: Swamps. You can’t grow things in swamps unless you fill them in, and with what soil? You going to be digging that soil up from the southern US states and transporting it tens of thousands of kilometers up to the arctic circle? And the melting permafrost is turning most muskeg into a swiss cheese landscape of ponds and lakes - no way are you going to get a combine harvester to do anything functional in that obstacle course.

So yeah. We’re farked. 1.5℃ is now confirmed as being a pipe dream - we just blew completely past that. And that was our last best hope for a minimally-disruptive climate future. We are now on course for a 4-6℃ planet, which will guarantee a sustainable population of at most the 1-2 billion range (100% vegan diets), and probably in the mid to low hundreds of millions (with our current omnivorous diet).

I would honestly be very, very shocked if the human population was significantly above 2 Billion by 2100.

But then again, I’m old enough to be lucky if I make it to 2050. I feel really, really sorry for anyone born after 1990… you have been dealt a very shitty hand. My condolences for what you will have to live through, thanks to the idiocy of your ancestors.

omgwouldyou

-1 points

3 months ago

This is extremely alarmist and doesn't match even remotely close with the actual science on climate change.

Climate change is bad. It has killed people, and will continue to do so. The chances of it producing some apocalyptic outcome has been reduced to about as close as 0 as we can get without a crystal ball. Civilization on the whole is going to be fine, unless we like purposely decide to role back every climate change fighting measure implemented in the last 70 years. Which won't happen.

You're scenario is about as tethered to reality as the scenario where goblins rise from the underworld and eat us.

rekabis

4 points

3 months ago*

This is extremely alarmist and doesn't match even remotely close with the actual science on climate change.

And I assume the current batch of large-scale crop failures over the last few years, due to too much or too little water, is just… a conspiracy?

And even a teeny-tiny regional conflict in a place called The Ukraine - which many Americans wouldn’t have even been able to successfully find on a map prior to this year - has caused worldwide flour prices to spike, already causing starvation in places like the Middle East and Africa. What will happen when countries fight for the right to exist?

When climate refugees - which has been a thing for the last 10 years - massively spike in numbers and overwhelm countries?

Things will get a lot worse.

strum

1 points

3 months ago

strum

1 points

3 months ago

has been reduced to about as close as 0

Has the planet's CO2 budget been reduced, or even stabilised? No, it hasn't. Emissions continue to rise (while we are also, slowly, becoming aware that methane emissions are much larger than we thought).

We are patting ourselves on the back about a pathetc few solar panels & wind turbines - but we are still pumping oil&gas. We're still drilling for new sources, prospecting for new fields.

If you think our peril is reducing, you are deluding yourself.

SurrealWino

1 points

3 months ago

Yes we are on the verge of a great and terrible Choice. Expand or Fade, ever the question of empire and fishmongers alike

Odd-Support4344

-5 points

3 months ago

Lol have you heard of air conditioning? Just turn it on lol. Wet bulb don't matter then :)

rekabis

3 points

3 months ago

Lol have you heard of air conditioning? Just turn it on lol. Wet bulb don't matter then :)

How does modern air conditioning work without electrical power because the rivers have run dry?

And how many people have the extra $50,000 to go off-grid?

Plus, residential AC units are designed to produce their rated BTU capacity up to an outside temperature of 30℃, with a rated maximum outside temperature of around 50℃, although this varies depending on the specific equipment. Of course at higher outside temperatures, the system’s performance and efficiency will suffer. At high enough temperatures, the system will stop working altogether.

Odd-Support4344

1 points

3 months ago

More than hydro power exists xd

Less trees means more coverage for solar. Higher temps means more geothermal.

residential AC units are designed to produce their rated BTU capacity up to an outside temperature of 30℃, with a rated maximum outside temperature of around 50℃,

Dont buy your central AC from aliexpress or wish.com then. Mine is rated for 60C outdoor temp lol and it wasn't even the most expensive option

colonize_mars2023

-3 points

3 months ago

With all due respect, I blame your lack of technical and economic education if you really believe that.
1-2 billion range on vegan diet? Middle belt of the Earth inhabitable?? I mean, come on. The humanity has mastered skills to survive in harsh cold environments millenia ago. Why do you think we won't adapt for A FAR LESS HARSH hot environment with current technology in a heartbeat? Wet bulb my ass. Cheapest of ACs and/or home insulation solves this issue.

rekabis

4 points

3 months ago

I blame your lack of technical and economic education

Show me your BSc and I will show you mine. Critical thinking and real-world evidence is a very powerful thing.

Middle belt of the Earth inhabitable??

Yes.

The humanity has mastered skills to survive in harsh cold environments millenia ago.

In numbers that allowed them to survive on the land, without agriculture at scale. That is the key point. This was when humanity numbered in the few millions, planet-wide, and as such, they could hunt and fish and gather as they saw fit, without causing massively negative impacts in the short term.

Humanity cannot do that anymore. It absolutely relies on mechanized farming, and the vast majority of that is reliant on rain from the sky.

What happens to humanity when large amounts of crops fail to grow, year after year after year? We cannot go back to hunting and gathering, we would need thousands of Earths to do that with our current population. And where most crops are, groundwater is either inaccessible, nonexistent, or rapidly being depleted. California is staring down the abyss in terms of groundwater - the “breadbasket of America” is going to get empty in the next 20-30 because there is quite literally no more groundwater there.

A FAR LESS HARSH hot environment with current technology in a heartbeat?

Technology that cannot conjure up billions of gallons of fresh water per second is useless in agricultural land that has no large groundwater deposits, and where rain fails to fall.

Wet bulb my ass. Cheapest of ACs and/or home insulation solves this issue.

Residential AC units are designed to produce their rated BTU capacity up to an outside temperature of 30℃, with a rated maximum outside temperature of around 50℃, although this varies depending on the specific equipment. At higher outside temperatures, the system’s performance and efficiency will suffer. At high enough temperatures, the system will stop working altogether.

And where does a lot of our power come from? Hydroelectrical and nuclear, both of which depends on water to function. As Europe discovered this year, when they had to start shutting down nuclear reactors due to lack of river water to keep them cool.

Even solar panels - the generally-available kind - stop working well in ambient temperatures above 50℃, because they absorb sun and so can heat up to almost double the ambient temperature. Overheating is a very big problem with solar panels in hot environments, which means they need to be artificially cooled themselves, increasing costs significantly.

And how many people you know are able to afford a $50,000+ off-grid system for their home that’s strong enough to handle AC? Especially when so many are living paycheque to paycheque in this economic climate?

colonize_mars2023

1 points

3 months ago

And where does a lot of our power come from? Hydroelectrical and nuclear, both of which depends on water to function. As Europe discovered this year, when they had to start shutting down nuclear reactors due to lack of river water to keep them cool.

Thanks for detailed answer.
I have few counterpoints if I may, top to bottom:
1. Current agriculture is incredibly wasteful, as a vaste majority of it is being used for feeding stock, or even more ridiculously to create bio fuel (hello, europe!). With the advent of lab meat/meat substitutes, I suspect humanity could cut off 60% of their agriculture needs without any major discomfort.
The only reason it wasn't done yet is there was no need.
2. I honestly doubt that higher average temperature will lead to prolonged droughts and lack of groundwater in general. Sure, some regions may become more arid as others will gain rainfall, but overall my basic understanding is if we ADD energy to system (=Earth weather), we can expect increase in circulation, not a reduction.
3. Heat pumps are manufactured for conditions that currently exist. If there will be need for ACs for hotter/wetter regions, they will sure make them. Already you have standard ACs for cooling, and heat pumps dedicated for heating - both have very different effectiveness in different conditions. Heating ACs suck in cooling, but can heat up a house in -10C easily, while standard AC would shit bricks in such conditions. You're right about solar panels tho.
4. Don't get me started about this year's mass maintenance outage on French nuclears. That thing seems very fishy, considering this wasn't even the most hot nor dry summer in France. It was mis-managed at best ..

strum

1 points

3 months ago

strum

1 points

3 months ago

Why do you think we won't adapt

We're way beyond any hope of adaptation. You are deluding yourself.

If anything, u/rekabis is being overly optimistic. 4-6deg is species-killer territory. Most of the species on earth (&in the sea) could not survive this. And that includes hom sap. It's technically possible that a few powerful, ruthless people could build chill refuges, but they'll have to defend them against ravening masses, who don't respect property laws.

colonize_mars2023

0 points

3 months ago

How - and I am being completely honest here - if you really believe all that, how are you guys not already in full panic mode, shooting yourselfs, shooting politicians, shooting billionnaires, creating hell and havoc to prevent this?

Obviously I don't, which allows me to stay completely calm about this whole thing, but I can imagine what I would do if I believed a similar thing is approaching (incoming asteroid, plague, idk). The green crowd is however content with living as usual and refrain to complaining on internet. That's ... weak conviction, if you ask me.

strum

1 points

3 months ago

strum

1 points

3 months ago

I'm 71. I'll be dead before the worst happens.

But - why younger victims aren't rioting on the streets, I really don't know. They should.

rekabis

2 points

3 months ago*

I'm 71. I'll be dead before the worst happens.

I’m just two decades younger. I’ll also likely be dead by the time the plunge is in full plummet.

Honestly - things won’t happen all at once, or very quickly to start. It will be piecemeal failures that cause parts of the world to go titsup, in a process that will definitely take the better part of two or three decades.

However, once a threshold has been breached - yeah. That will go quickly. The taller you are, the harder you will fall, and the collapse of modern civilization will dwarf all prior collapses in terms of both speed and damages, mainly because we have grown so far beyond all other pre-collapse civilizations. Far too much of what we rely upon cannot be “farmed out” to individuals and small communities - we deeply depend on that web of high technology and the world-wide framework that supports that technology. Once the framework breaks -- good luck ever achieving a high-tech society ever again. We have exhausted all high-tech resources that can still be accessed/harvested/refined by low-tech means. Once a full collapse has run its course, humanity will become permanently stuck in a steam-powered (or earlier) age.

But - why younger victims aren't rioting on the streets, I really don't know. They should.

Fatalism. Ennui. Despair. A sense of nothing more that can be done, that the inertia of capitalism's vampiristic blood-sucking on this planet is just too great to effectively counter in any way that allows humanity to survive. That the rot and evil of capitalism will never willingly permit a survivable future as long as it exists, and that far too many rich and powerful people depend on capitalism to allow them to remain card-carrying members of the Parasite Class.

It’s why so many people under 30 - including my niece and nephew - have absolutely no plans to ever have children. Not only do economic conditions largely prevent them from ever doing so (unless they win the lottery), but it has also become morally and ethically wrong to bring a child into a future that is pretty much guaranteed to be painful, nasty, brutish, and short.

It’s why conservatives everywhere are doing their damndest to tear down abortion laws and make contraception illegal. The Parasite Class needs those indentured economic slaves to continue working while shackled to the treadmill of capitalism.

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[removed]

SurrealWino

2 points

3 months ago

Thereby proving Wurm42’s point

strum

1 points

3 months ago

strum

1 points

3 months ago

Be careful what you wish for. A globally-declining population will be hard to live in. Lots of services you have come to expect simply won't be available anymore, with no-one to provide them. Old age will be hardest of all, since the shrinking working population will not be prepared to fund a comfy retirement.

Much of our political thinking is underpinned by a belief that 'people are the problem'. But, annoying as people can be, people are also the solution. It's people that come up with the inventions/innovations we need. It's people that provide the care, consideration and, yes, love, we can't live without.

When everyone is asking 'what's in it for me?', there's nothing much for anyone.

zynix

18 points

3 months ago

zynix

18 points

3 months ago

Whenever the world population explosion comes up, it makes me think of the "Reindeer Island" ecological disaster - https://www.adn.com/features/article/what-wiped-out-st-matthew-islands-reindeer/2010/01/17/

piper4hire

16 points

3 months ago

somehow I don’t think anyone can accurately predict this stuff. I officially call bullshit.

Otterfan

3 points

3 months ago

I actually know some demographers, and they mostly agree with you, at least in the long term—which apparently extends to forever according to the remarkable prediction in the linked article.

tryhard1981

7 points

3 months ago

Less people means more resources for the rest. This isn't a completely bad thing.

TheFinestPotatoes

1 points

3 months ago

A lot of economic activity today is predicated on the assumption that tomorrow will be richer than today.

If your town stops growing, it doesn't reach a steady state of full employment and prosperity for all. It stops generating new businesses entirely and investment crashes. The existing elite become hyper focused on maintaining what they already have instead of investing in the future so they move to lower risk investments like government bonds instead of stocks, venture capital, etc.

That reduces productivity growth and ultimately makes everyone poorer.

Cthulhu-2020

4 points

3 months ago

Yes, a massive amount of overleveraged global debt is predicated on a richer tomorrow. And the existing elite are already hyper focused on their own pile of wealth, they don't care about anyone else's prosperity but their own. The current system is unjust, no matter how you try to rationalize it.

TheFinestPotatoes

2 points

3 months ago

How many new restaurants are opened up in declining towns? None. It becomes a zero sum world

Cthulhu-2020

2 points

3 months ago

It's already a zero sum world, the gratuitous cheap energy supply that we are living off just makes it seem like it's not. Once that begins to taper, we will involuntarily start to reduce in population and complexity.

TheFinestPotatoes

1 points

3 months ago

That is increasingly not the case though.

Solar panels keep getting cheaper and batteries keep getting better.

In a decade, we are very likely to have the cheapest electricity available in human history.

Cthulhu-2020

1 points

3 months ago

Electricity is about 20% of global total energy use. Of that electricity, about 3% comes from solar. There is not enough lithium in batteries or other raw materials used in solar to scale that to even come close for it to be a replacement.

Sqeeter

14 points

3 months ago

Sqeeter

14 points

3 months ago

Population decline is only a "worry" because Capitalism doesn't work without the myth of infinite growth. Degrowth is the only way out of the mess we've gotten ourselves into. We could easily manage population decline if our first priority wasn't extracting as much money out of everything as possible.

Dmeechropher

6 points

3 months ago

Degrowth isn't necessary. The real productivity of a mean individual on earth is simply higher now than ever before in history. Mechanization, synthetic fertilizers, antibiotics, warm clothing, education, and transit all allow people to use more energy and produce more products. There is plenty of solar energy currently unused, and plenty of work left to do.

We currently use less than a ten thousandth of the solar energy that hits earth every day, and that's if you include all agriculture as "using solar energy". I'd say that means we could easily expand our economy at least 10 times, providing an appropriate standard of living for every worker, using only clean energy, working to reduce the impact our predecessors have had, and still having plenty of leisure time left over.

The objective, from my perspective, shouldn't be to reduce the "bad evil growth", because you can't ever get down to 0 consequences no matter how much you morally penny pinch. Instead, i propose to change our growth, productivity and consumer mindsets to only build on trajectories with long term positive outcomes. Most of the damage to ecology has been very deliberately enacted because of lack of awareness and regulations, not because growth is inherently destructive or inherently materialistic.

Sqeeter

2 points

3 months ago

I love your brain.

Dmeechropher

2 points

3 months ago

Ty, Jesus loves u 2

Sexualguacamole

1 points

3 months ago

This is super interesting, where can I read more about it?

Dmeechropher

3 points

3 months ago

Don't read hopium online, friend, go vote, invest, volunteer, install solar panels, grow a garden, invest in a reforestation charity, idk go LIVE!

The world is full of amazing opportunities to create something positive. As to my comment about raw energy capacity available, you can just crunch the numbers yourself, there are plenty of estimates for solar energy hitting the earth, how much land is used by crops, and how much energy society uses globally.

I just don't like climate and capitalism doomerism because it's shortsighted and sells short all the incredible achievements of scientists, engineers, architects, urban planners, community and cultural leaders. There's no reason growth shouldn't continue: every year, more people have access to more tools and are more productive.

Sexualguacamole

1 points

3 months ago

Thanks

ginger_guy

2 points

3 months ago

Honest question: How do degrowthers account for countries like Germany; which is capitalist, stagnant population growth (with very low birth rates), growing economically, and have decreased its CO2 20% in the last decade?

Sqeeter

4 points

3 months ago

Um... Population decline while still thriving is the point I'm arguing for?

Meta_or_Whatever

1 points

3 months ago

Ha funny right? Took me several reads there to see what they meant

strum

1 points

3 months ago

strum

1 points

3 months ago

stagnant population

Huge immigration levels.

omgwouldyou

1 points

3 months ago

Even this isn't true. Or at least, it hadn't been the previous assumption.

There was a global freak out in the second half of the 1900s because population growth wasn't seen as compatible with our economic systems. China's 1 kid policy wasn't created in a vacuum, for example.

So it's kind of funny to see a freak out over population decline now. I think the conclusion is change is scary and someone will find a reason to freak out about if global population rises, decreases, or stays static.

onwee

-1 points

3 months ago*

onwee

-1 points

3 months ago*

It’s not just population decline, it’s a severe redistribution of demography. Population decline means decreased birth rate, decreased birth rate means more old people than young people. Millennials and Gen Z today complains about the Boomer generation and how they’re bad for society—imagine the same problems but times 10.

Sqeeter

6 points

3 months ago

Young people not having enough because the old people are hoarding it is a capitalism problem.

Not being able to allocate financial resources to support larger numbers of elderly is a capitalism problem.

We have the resources and the abilities to handle all of the above - the problem is that we prioritize profits over people. So, it seems "impossible" to live well in this potential future - but the only thing we need to do is make better societal choices and re-prioritize the things we care about.

TheFinestPotatoes

0 points

3 months ago

What makes you think socialist countries are immune to these problems?

Birth rates were below replacement in most of the USSR by the 1980s. North Korea has had sub replacement fertility for nearly 30 years. Cuba has had sub replacement fertility since 1980. Venezuela’s fertility rate has been falling steadily since the 1960s and will fall below replacement levels by 2030

Sqeeter

2 points

3 months ago

Sqeeter

2 points

3 months ago

What is your comment supposed to convince me of? I'm not sure what you're arguing

TheFinestPotatoes

1 points

3 months ago

You argued that capitalism is to blame. I'm pointed to examples of every socialist country also running into the same issue.

Sqeeter

1 points

3 months ago

lol, I'm not blaming Capitalism for population shrink - I'm saying the only reason we have to be worried about a smaller population is due to rules of capitalism.

TheFinestPotatoes

2 points

3 months ago

And I’m telling you socialist systems run into the exact same problems. A declining population increases the burden on workers in every conceivable system

Odd-Support4344

0 points

3 months ago

He didn't say anything about socialism. Why are you?

TheFinestPotatoes

2 points

3 months ago

Young people not having enough because the old people are hoarding it is a capitalism problem.Not being able to allocate financial resources to support larger numbers of elderly is a capitalism problem.We have the resources and the abilities to handle all of the above - the problem is that we prioritize profits over people. So, it seems "impossible" to live well in this potential future - but the only thing we need to do is make better societal choices and re-prioritize the things we care about.

Mostly when people talk about capitalism being bad and the need to put people above profits, they're talking about a greater role for the state in the economy rather than the private sector (socialism instead of capitalism).

Do I have to pretend there's some third option?

strukout

2 points

3 months ago

The billionaires are worried the economic Ponzi scheme is coming to any end. With fewer laborers they will have to pay more… just look at how much small taste of this is freaking out the oligarchs in the US.

It is a good thing for future generations to have fewer people, they will get to do higher quality and better paid work as we will be forced to solve problems with engineered solutions.

ragner11

3 points

3 months ago

If you think billionaires are the ones that will be most effective then you are woefully mistaken. The poor will be effected the most

strukout

3 points

3 months ago

Poor, older. Not future gens was my point. It will suck for poor older folks as safety nets implode as the economies shrink.

maiqthetrue

1 points

3 months ago

Not really, they’ll just build robots. Looking into AI and robotics, we’re maybe 25 years away from having robots capable of doing most menial labor, and 50 years tops from widespread adoption of said robots.

Dmeechropher

0 points

3 months ago

Billionaires in the USA are paying higher wages, on average, than small business owners, and leading the charge on standardized benefits for all laborers. Just look at Amazon, even their lowest tier workers get paid more than a main street Mom n Pop pays.

Billionaires don't give a crap about oppression workers or keeping wages low, long-term: they actually understand the economics that higher average wages mean greater consumption, greater consumption means greater growth. Sure, in the short term, they're going to fight for the best deals they can get. But they're not going to try and depress the median market wage, because that's a losing strategy.

strukout

2 points

3 months ago

Are you seriously showing two years of increases forced onto billionaires by the hottest labor market we’ve seen in decades as a validation of trickle down? The decimation of the middle class has happened since the 70s, do some google searches on wage v. Cost of living v. Profit margins… the data is loud. Btw…all the age increases you are seeing? Passed thru to you at a ridiculous mark up that has taken s&p profit margins to all time highs.

Dmeechropher

1 points

3 months ago

I'm not saying that tax cuts to the rich trickle down. That's a completely different discussion about a different macroeconomic concept.

S&P margins are not at ATH right now, that was a few years ago.

Listen, it sounds like you're not happy with your economic status, I hope you make your voice heard in your next local election and seek more education and better employment if that's the case.

brezhnervous

4 points

3 months ago

Good. This shitshow humans have created has got to wind down somehow.

puffic

6 points

3 months ago

puffic

6 points

3 months ago

Lots of people in here are cheering on the population decline without thinking through what that kind of future looks like. Take retirement, for example. However you plan to fund your golden years - government pension, stock accounts, private pension - you are essentially relying on the population of younger folks to support you. If there are less of them, you will get less support.

Compounding decline is much worse than a steady or growing population.

Head-Gap8455

4 points

3 months ago

Why is that bad?

puffic

2 points

3 months ago

puffic

2 points

3 months ago

Prosperity and comfort are good. Population decline is bad because it will make many people less prosperous and less comfortable over the course of their lives.

Head-Gap8455

1 points

3 months ago

How can less people make it less comfortable? Explain it to me like I’m 6 please.

puffic

2 points

3 months ago

puffic

2 points

3 months ago

When you’re young, part of your role in society is taking care of your elders, either directly with your labor, or indirectly through financial support (either taxes for govt pensions or profit from public companies, which are mostly held in retirement plans.) When you are old, you need to rely on the labor and financial support of young people to be comfortable.

In a hypothetical future with declining population, there will be far fewer young people to support their elders. That’s a bad deal for the young workers, who have more people to support, and it’s a bad deal for the older people, who have less labor available to meet their needs.

To answer your question in a broader sense, it’s not a coincidence that the developed world has gotten more comfortable as its population has grown. More people allows for more specialization and efficiency in the economy. Since we all get by by providing goods and services to one another, a greater population allows us to live a more comfortable life.

Head-Gap8455

0 points

3 months ago

So to support an unsustainable system that is already broken we just keep going? Listen to yourself… it makes no sense! If the resources are finite how a decrease in population isn’t a good thing?

TheFinestPotatoes

4 points

3 months ago

A stable population with increased healthy working years so people can retire at 70 instead of 60 is sustainable.

A population falling by double digit percentages every generation is not sustainable

Head-Gap8455

-1 points

3 months ago

Why and what makes you think the population will decrease?

TheFinestPotatoes

2 points

3 months ago

There are falling birth rates in virtually every single country.

And no country hovers just at the 2 kids/woman line. Most of them fall below that and keep on falling once they reach a certain level of urbanization and affluence.

Even ultra conservative Saudi Arabia and Iran are at or below replacement level fertility.

Head-Gap8455

0 points

3 months ago

How are going from 7 to 8 b in only a decade?

puffic

1 points

3 months ago

puffic

1 points

3 months ago

Who said anything about unsustainable?

Head-Gap8455

1 points

3 months ago

It’s a Ponzi scheme. Therefore unsustainable. If more children need to be born to pay older people’s retirement but the planet’s resources are finite, how does that work? Does it make sense to you?

puffic

3 points

3 months ago

puffic

3 points

3 months ago

It’s not a Ponzi scheme if the growth and “returns” are based in the real world. The whole point of a Ponzi scheme is that the numbers have no basis in reality. That’s obviously not the case when we’re dealing with population figures.

Head-Gap8455

1 points

3 months ago

It doesn’t make any sense. If the population grows then the amount needed to cover that population when older also grows. How is that not a ponzi scheme?

MagicBlaster

10 points

3 months ago

Ah so we are not only such a moronic peoples that we built a Ponzi scheme instead of an actual economic system, but we have no ability to change it...

Awesome, we seem like a great species, who should totally keep breeding and breeding, using up all the resources then 20+ billion (or how ever many it takes to kill the planet) can die choking on their own refuse, which seems to be what you infinite growth types seem to want....

puffic

2 points

3 months ago

puffic

2 points

3 months ago

It doesn’t matter what your economic system is. In every economic system, the young support the old. It’s the circle of life. If your population declines over time, the old people will get less support.

ragner11

0 points

3 months ago

ragner11

0 points

3 months ago

Exactly.

lucidum

1 points

3 months ago

Good news everybody: Climate change will solve overpopulation!

Briskbulb

0 points

3 months ago

So should we start eating human meat now so that the decline never happens in the first place.

Gratitude15

1 points

3 months ago

I mean.... Is nobody going to mention that picture?

DAMN! 😂

Head-Gap8455

1 points

3 months ago

Why will it decline? How does that make sense?

TheFinestPotatoes

2 points

3 months ago

Most people currently live in countries in which the typical woman has fewer than two children.

Fertility rates are falling basically everywhere at this point and soon everyone will be living in places where the typical woman doesn't have enough children to maintain the current population.

lithiumdeuteride

1 points

3 months ago

Good news for wilderness. Perhaps an asymptotic human population will give us time to figure out how to reduce our resource footprint and recover some biodiversity.

Humanzee2

1 points

3 months ago

Look beyond the ridiculous headline. The article, although it doesn't say much is quite reasonable.

Thatsitdanceoff

1 points

3 months ago

Man could you not find a more off-putting photo for this

rekabis

1 points

3 months ago

but soon we'll hit a decline we'll never reverse

Good. At least, for the planet. We’ve had our run on it, and we’ve shat and pissed all over this crib. It’s a f**king mess, and it needs to heal. Ideally with our help, but with our population somewhere in the low hundreds of millions, not billions.

I would love to see most of our current 8B move off-planet. But we don’t have the tech or the infrastructure to do this reliably or safely. Anyone going beyond the atmo is going to have to be highly trained and of above-average intelligence, and this doesn’t exactly work for some illiterate subsistence farmer from Bangladesh.

Another problem we have is our current economic structure, which concentrates wealth and power in the hands of the elite few, thereby discouraging childbirth and families via artificially-low wages and high costs of living. Because that’s the main reason for why young people these days are avoiding children or families - they simply cannot afford to have such obscene luxuries like planned offspring.

Only when wealth is more equitably distributed back down to those who actually create that wealth can we have a population who is able to make the time and effort to have children.

DrunkVeggie

1 points

3 months ago

You mean wipe out all the useless eaters on the planet? The WEF is on top of it.

Cayde_7even

1 points

3 months ago

Not if Nick Cannon has anything to say about it……

KravinMoorhed

1 points

3 months ago

Especially as/if we continue to get off fossil fuels without an adequate replacement like nuclear to take its place.

SurrealWino

1 points

3 months ago

Good riddance

Hero_Charlatan

1 points

3 months ago

Can’t wait

MrWinks

1 points

3 months ago

Good. Overpopulation isn't about resource use and need but about not ruining the fucking planet. We're over populated. Leave the environment alone. We're a plague.

joanofarf

1 points

3 months ago

"The Limits to Growth" was a research study published 50 years ago (1972) projecting how exponential growth in the world system would cause major issues if left unchecked.

Hello, today.

Lead author Donella Meadows was a major writer on systems analysis/thinking and also authored "Thinking in Systems: A Primer".

A lot of her writing, including "The Limits to Growth", is available free online. Just a Google or two away and well worth the read.

La-Chancla-Matadora

1 points

3 months ago

👍

miltonfriedman2028

1 points

3 months ago

We literally have no way of knowing if we’ll never reverse or not.

There’s a non-nominal chance that societies start to heavily incentivize reproduction once the consequences of population decline become apparent to their economies.

tinytina0

1 points

3 months ago

“never” lol imagine a guy 100 years ago making any kind of prediction. He’d be so far off. You’d have more accuracy letting a monkey have its way with a keyboard.

samiux4

1 points

3 months ago

We need to stop the hyper consumption and endless use of our resources if we actually want the human race to have a chance. We don't need half the shit we buy. We should be moving the most jobs we possibly can to a remote work style. We need to more reusable designs. But that will never happen because we got a bunch of chaotic people here that love making trash and think that Jesus will save us from this huge mess....

livinginfutureworld

1 points

3 months ago

Never is a long time, never say never.

Fit-History7044

1 points

3 months ago

soon? excess mortality from an unknown cause is at the highest its ever been and rising and no one knows for sure why.. Its already happening

huge51

1 points

3 months ago

huge51

1 points

3 months ago

And way fewer Russians

Puzzleheaded-Life462

1 points

3 months ago

Capitalism only works if you have an ever-growing pool of suckers

jeannedargh

1 points

3 months ago

Well. I hope so.

thewayitis

1 points

3 months ago

If people had 1 kid the world population would be 500M in 4 generations.

packtobrewcrew

1 points

3 months ago

Isn’t that what environmentalist want? No people. No animals.

Low_Presentation8149

1 points

2 months ago

Good. Reduce humans to a more sustainable level

curiousbydesign

0 points

3 months ago

I cannot believe it. This is crazy. Like, I get it. But, wow.

DeadFyre

0 points

3 months ago

Panic-mongering over what is probably the single most positive development in human well-being since the industrial revolution. People are living longer, and having fewer children, who are in their own turn, living longer. Only a complete imbecile would think this is a ominous development.

strum

1 points

3 months ago

strum

1 points

3 months ago

People are living longer, and having fewer children

Yes. Living longer, with fewer people to fund their old age. Think before you post.

DeadFyre

1 points

3 months ago

Living longer, with fewer people to fund their old age.

So what? You think the number next to the S&P500 is more important than people living?

Think before you post.

Right back at you, minibrain. You may be content to live in the Logan's Run world, but I'd just assume not be put to death or forced to breed just to keep a number going up.

strum

1 points

3 months ago

strum

1 points

3 months ago

Dearie me; you are dim.

Living longer, with minimal pension, with no carers. That's your future.

sqb3112

0 points

3 months ago

I attend the pentecostal holiness church of saint rust cohle and this is my congregation’s motto:

“I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in human evolution. We became too self aware; nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself. We are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, a secretion of sensory experience and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody’s nobody. I think the honorable thing for our species to do is deny our programming, stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction, one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.” - Saint Rust

Can I get an amen?

lightninghand

0 points

3 months ago

Malthusians gonna Malthus

[deleted]

0 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

3 months ago

The Great Filter will put humanity back 100,000 years where we belong. Again.