0
9

[–] BigDrunkBoat 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I love that futurology here on voat is so much more centered, empirically-driven and unbiased (or, well, as unbiased as possible). I love the idea of this sub, but back in the other place a post like this warning of anything that wasn't a purely utopian future was downvoted to oblivion. Technocrat tryhards absolutely convinced that everything we're doing right now will lead us to greener pastures completely dominated the discussion to the point where it wasn't really a discussion as much as it was propaganda. I'm very happy that that sort of thinking didn't follow this sub to voat. Gladly subscribing to this sub now.

0
0

[–] kirkis 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yeah, I got really sick of motherfuckers shoehorning basic income into every conversation. They also keep pushing technological unemployment and freak the fuck out when you offer positive projections that say otherwise.

0
6

[–] nbd [S] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I'm not gonna hipster this too hard but I have been saying this for years and it is a maddening conversation to have with people who are still dead convinced that overpopulation is a risk simply because they have heard it repeated for so long.

0
6

[–] namealreadytaken 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

People dont argue against overpopulation because theyre unthinking sheep; give them some credit. People are rightly worried about overpopulation due to pollution, overcrowding and scarcity of non-renewable resources.

I dont think we'll be overpopulated because of what I've seen of Hans Roslings talks and Gapminder.org charts. I'm quite optimistic that population will stabilise and perhaps retract a little but I dont think that's a bad thing. No am I worried about under population, because I think long term, culture and society will adapt and establish a new normal and trajectory.

I get a sense that worrying about birth rates now is akin to people in Western countries 100 years ago who had a dozen kids or more would be horrified if they saw us only having 2-3 kids nowadays. Cultural standards change, and society adapts. Our views and standards of today will be equally archaic to the society of 100 years from now, as the standards of the 1800s and ealry 1900s are to us today.

0
2

[–] Snivy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

That's not entirely true. Overpopulation is a problem due to pollution and lack of ability to get food to everyone. But the real underlying truth of overpopulation that no one really talks about is that in order to reach "true" overpopulation we have to modernize so much of the world. And the planet simply cannot sustain Africa having as many factories as the US or China. That would kill everything.

It's not a coincidence that as China for example (also India to an extent but way way less) gets more industrialized the amount of global warming increases tremendously. It was rising before sure, but the Chinese get more into cars, more into production, more into coal and gas power, and less into farming it turned the air there into shit. Pollution everywhere, temperatures uncharacteristically rising higher in metropolitan areas in China than almost any other part of the world.

Granted of course the mountains keeping some of the pollution in China aren't helping at all and are only compounding the problem. But still.

0
1

[–] Amelia_Earnhardt_Jr 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I don't think our problem is a lack of resources to support 10 billion+ people, I think our problem has more to do with who's in charge of those resources and how they're distributed. We have the energy and food, but we'll need some sort of global communism and redistribution of wealth if we expect further billions to thrive on our planet.

The way we're doing things now, at 7 billion, leaves hundreds of millions poverty-stricken, diseased, and starving.

0
1

[–] 1982 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Ugh I can't get onto YouTube due data bro. Can you tldr his arguments for me? I'm curious/skeptical

0
2

[–] namealreadytaken 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Birth rates below population replacement means loads of old people die off and will not replaced; populations will implode. If each successive generation only replaces half their number, after 3 generations you're left with 12% of today's population.

0
2

[–] runvnc 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Other people have been saying this, but they are not as popular so people don't notice.

Governments have actively worked through chemical, educational, and economical means to sterilize many populations. This is the result of a Malthusian, classist belief system from the upper class.

This is likely to have less of an impact than people expect with their linear thinking as we are working on unlocking the secrets of aging.

0
1

[–] kahing 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The solution to this, is of course, anti-aging. I'm convinced in the future, we'll have an indefinitely-living youthful population. Birth rates will be low, deaths will be through other causes such as accidents and suicide, so we'll have a low birth and death rate, but with the defeat of aging it can be sustainable.

1
0

[–] kirkis 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

I think his trajectory on underpopulation is overblown to say the least. If anything we can only hope that population levels off. We are burning through resources and changing the chemistry of our planet at our current repopulation rate. Sodomy is eco-friendly. Fight crime, have an abortion.

1
0

[–] runvnc 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Just like on reddit, futurology is really just stuff Elon Musk says. Maybe we should just start v/getinlinetosuckoffelonmusk ?

Other people have interesting ideas.

0
2

[–] klusterVug 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Then post them.

0
1

[–] kirkis 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The guy is a rock star engineer. He's trying his damnedest to build a sustainable future and doing a good job at it too. If anybody deserves a line around the block for a suck off, it's him.

1
-1

[–] kirkis 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

I think his trajectory on underpopulation is overblown to say the least. If anything we can only hope that population levels off. We are burning through resources and changing the chemistry of our planet at our current repopulation rate. Sodomy is eco-friendly. Fight crime, have an abortion.

2
-2

[–] eldorann 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

The population today is greater than that in the past. Eventually, the size of the population will surpass the ability to provide resources to said population. Extinction occurs.

Q.E.D.

0
0

[–] kirkis 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

One great thing about being human is we have the ability to outsmart natural problems faster than natural selection. It's been this way since we gave up on running and picked up a stick.