The Brazilian gov is destroying the rain forest.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,884
32,665
136
While I agree that places like San Fran could use more density, that concession is mostly for the existing job market to become healthier. You undermine any benefit that brings if, after you move everyone out of the suburbs, you simply replace them with MORE people.

Having lived in SF I can assure you the job market is fine. It's the housing market that is the problem.

No body wants to live like sardines in Tokyo. And what if we did accomplish that?

I doubt Tokyo level density is required but...have you been to Tokyo? I have. Yes the apartments can be tiny but guess what we've got that here in the states already too. Would probably be better off regulating a min size (say 200 sq ft) and letting people build them wherever.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,402
8,038
136
Growth must end. That is the ONLY way.
Legalize abortion. Overpopulation is a major factor in unsustainability. Yes, it's legal now... sort of, but the right's attack on a woman's right to decide if she wants to go to term is another hell hound coming at our throats as a species.

The survival of the human race ... that's what's at stake now on the grandest scale. We may survive in some form but it's looking very likely to be dystopian in the extreme. That or total annihilation, and I'm not talking nuclear. Collapse of the ecosystem on a scale that makes human survival practically impossible is on our doorstep.

There's serious infighting going on now within the Democratic Party concerning having a presidential debate specifically focusing on climate change issues.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Limit having children to one per family. Problem solved in 50 years. People are the problem.

Yeah, the problem there is simple: We would be creating Idiocracy.

Sure, let's limit the number of children that DEVELOPED and EDUCATED countries can have, but let's continue to let the free flow of uneducated people in 3rd world countries continue to shit out 12. That sounds like a GRAND ol' plan.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,884
32,665
136
Yeah, the problem there is simple: We would be creating Idiocracy.

Sure, let's limit the number of children that DEVELOPED and EDUCATED countries can have, but let's continue to let the free flow of uneducated people in 3rd world countries continue to shit out 12. That sounds like a GRAND ol' plan.

Like do we even need a limit? Native birth rates in developed countries are below replacement (well below in quite a few cases).

If we really want to limit population then bringing the rest of the world up to some higher standard of living without busting the carbon budget is really the ticket here. I'm not talking about American suburban living with three trucks that get 15mpg in the driveway and are exclusively used to haul one kid to school or commute to work.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
Legalize abortion. Overpopulation is a major factor in unsustainability. Yes, it's legal now... sort of, but the right's attack on a woman's right to decide if she wants to go to term is another hell hound coming at our throats as a species.

Fully legal free abortion would barely touch our population numbers. If we want to control our population we need, at the very minimum, mandatory birth control methods. If we were to give every male born a vas deferens block the we would have a shot at controlling our population. Read up on Vasalgel it is two simple shots and completely reversible, we should be pumping research money into this to see if it has any long term side effects or drawbacks.

That or total annihilation, and I'm not talking nuclear. Collapse of the ecosystem on a scale that makes human survival practically impossible is on our doorstep.

If the human race dies out it will probably be due to nuclear war. Ecosystem collapse is not going to be quick, it is going to be a slow process that will take decades at the minimum, it might even be going on already. As resources get tighter and tighter we will get ever more desperate. As we get desperate we will start to fight over whatever is left, and we will probably destroy ourselves in the process.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
Yeah, the problem there is simple: We would be creating Idiocracy.

Sure, let's limit the number of children that DEVELOPED and EDUCATED countries can have, but let's continue to let the free flow of uneducated people in 3rd world countries continue to shit out 12. That sounds like a GRAND ol' plan.

Did you know that education is not correlated to intelligence? Did you know that being brown or black does not equate to being unintelligent?
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,402
8,038
136
Fully legal free abortion would barely touch our population numbers. If we want to control our population we need, at the very minimum, mandatory birth control methods. If we were to give every male born a vas deferens block the we would have a shot at controlling our population. Read up on Vasalgel it is two simple shots and completely reversible, we should be pumping research money into this to see if it has any long term side effects or drawbacks.
Compulsory birth control is something the Chinese have engaged in, and I'm not going to say it's immoral or anything. But to institute it here in the USA will take a monstrous sea change in attitudes. To start going in the right direction (duh) we need to view birth control as a right. We need to stop all this demonizing of Planned Parenthood... there have been multiple plans to violently attack (guns!) PP facilities in just the last few days. We need to neutralize the lunatic rhetoric around population control and a woman's right to determine her procreation scenarios.


If the human race dies out it will probably be due to nuclear war. Ecosystem collapse is not going to be quick, it is going to be a slow process that will take decades at the minimum, it might even be going on already. As resources get tighter and tighter we will get ever more desperate. As we get desperate we will start to fight over whatever is left, and we will probably destroy ourselves in the process.
This shows that you are like the great majority blissfully unaware of how willy nilly we are plunging into the rabbit hole, have been doing so for decades.

I'm just starting it, but The Uninhabitable Earth - Life After Warming addresses this stuff head on and uncompromisingly. I think you'll get the idea at that link if you do a free preview of some of the beginning of the book. He gets right into it.
 
Last edited:

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,295
1,520
136
Pretty much every developed country that has a growing population is only growing because of immigration. If one is concerned about overpopulation (sensible!), the best approach is to advocate for education, women's rights and universally available birth control. Eugenics is not only wildly unethical but is just plain not necessary.

(For the US, see:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_01-508.pdf

which places our total fertility rate as of 2017 at 1765.5 per 1000 women whereas 2100 is considered replacement level.)
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
Compulsory birth control is something the Chinese have engaged in, and I'm not going to say it's immoral or anything.

I'm not advocating for mandatory sterilization, but reversible birth control. I would include with that free reversal (and reapplication) for anyone over the age of 18. No accidental children, reproduction becomes 99% intentional. That alone would probably half the worlds population in a few generations.

But to institute it here in the USA will take a monstrous sea change in attitudes.
Any change that has any chance at saving us is going to take a massive change in our attitudes. We have to make massive changes to our attitudes about almost everything if we want to reverse course. Either that or some magic technology. Maybe the singularity will come and save (probably by enslaving) us.

To start going in the right direction (duh) we need to view birth control as a right. We need to stop all this demonizing of Planned Parenthood... there have been multiple plans to violently attack (guns!) PP facilities in just the last few days. We need to neutralize the lunatic rhetoric around population control and a woman's right to determine her procreation scenarios.

This would be a good start, but it is not nearly enough. It would at most make a minor change in our population levels. We need to not just do this in the United States, but world wide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soulcougher73

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,402
8,038
136
This would be a good start, but it is not nearly enough. It would at most make a minor change in our population levels. We need to not just do this in the United States, but world wide.
Neutralizing the demonizing of birth control would have the great benefit of changing people's attitudes. That's a crucial, fundamental first step in dealing with overpopulation.

In any case, our biggest problem now by far (IT'S HUGE) is the oncoming irreversible train wreck of climate change. We can mitigate it some, but there's no stopping it now.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
Neutralizing the demonizing of birth control would have the great benefit of changing people's attitudes. That's a crucial, fundamental first step in dealing with overpopulation.

I agree with you that removing the stigma on birth control would be more than just a good first step, but a necessary first step. Any reasonable solution is going to have to start with that.

In any case, our biggest problem now by far (IT'S HUGE) is the oncoming irreversible train wreck of climate change. We can mitigate it some, but there's no stopping it now.

I agree here also. But population control will greatly assist in reducing climate damage. Fewer people means less greenhouse gases, because it means we need less of everything from energy, to roads, to meat. No matter how good we get at being carbon neutral we are going to have to control how much we consume, and to do that we have to control how many of us there are to consume.

The problem with this of course is that we might already be too late for that solution to have time to work, but even if it is we have to work on that solution as well, because all other solutions are likely to be patches and without population control we will be back in the same situation in a few more decades. Even small amounts of carbon emission multiplied over billions will become too much.
 
Dec 10, 2005
23,984
6,786
136
No body wants to live like sardines in Tokyo.
That's a false notion of density. A lot of single-family zoning areas could easily become twice as dense just by allowing people to make duplexes or slightly denser homes. We don't need to be installing sardine apartments everywhere to increase housing availability. And in cities, it can be allowing buildings of several stories instead of artificially constraining height to a ridiculously low level or removing parking minimums.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,884
32,665
136
That's a false notion of density. A lot of single-family zoning areas could easily become twice as dense just by allowing people to make duplexes or slightly denser homes. We don't need to be installing sardine apartments everywhere to increase housing availability. And in cities, it can be allowing buildings of several stories instead of artificially constraining height to a ridiculously low level or removing parking minimums.

Behold four units on a lot:


Screen Shot 2019-08-27 at 9.39.16 AM.png


I mean it's practically Ginza up in here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511
May 13, 2009
12,333
612
126
I can somewhat understand the Brazilian president's point of view. We expect them to keep all of their land with forests and meanwhile we destroy trees just because it's bad for the grass. And of course everyone needs a dually truck to pick up groceries.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,402
8,038
136
It would be like spitting on a bonfire. This is much bigger than even a wave of tankers could put a dent in.
It's a serious situation. On the news the other day they said 10,000 new fires a day in the Amazon.
 

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
4,442
3,280
136
Meh. Might as well wipe it all out and ourselves in the process. Humans are obviously universally shitty so future generations won’t be any better. Only solution is for the earth to start fresh.

Let it burn
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
I can somewhat understand the Brazilian president's point of view. We expect them to keep all of their land with forests and meanwhile we destroy trees just because it's bad for the grass. And of course everyone needs a dually truck to pick up groceries.

I can too. Everyone always has a good reason for the destruction they are doing. We are no different. At least some of that rainforest is being burned so that we can have cheap meat and produce all winter long.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,200
14,873
136
Like do we even need a limit? Native birth rates in developed countries are below replacement (well below in quite a few cases).

If we really want to limit population then bringing the rest of the world up to some higher standard of living without busting the carbon budget is really the ticket here. I'm not talking about American suburban living with three trucks that get 15mpg in the driveway and are exclusively used to haul one kid to school or commute to work.

What you fail to realize is that these idiots complaining about growth (yes they are idiots as its been explained to them several times exactly what you've posted and they still repeat the same bull shit), is that they want to put the blame and therefore the solutions on things that don't affect them. Requiring better mpg? Well now you are fucking with their choice of vehicles, exactly how are they going to 4x4 in places like Joshua tree national park with some puny gas saver? Don't even get them started on an aggressive US green policy.
 

Denly

Golden Member
May 14, 2011
1,433
229
106
First off I am glad every single poster here agreed Amazon NEED to be protected, first time ever?

I think in order to keep Earth as we knew so we can live we need to protect all the important "balancer" rather it is amazon, BC/Alaska rain forest, Indoneisa, arctic, great lake or other import regions. We can form an international treaty say those area are protected and all countries chip in for the respected loss of econ output.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JSt0rm
May 13, 2009
12,333
612
126
What you fail to realize is that these idiots complaining about growth (yes they are idiots as its been explained to them several times exactly what you've posted and they still repeat the same bull shit), is that they want to put the blame and therefore the solutions on things that don't affect them. Requiring better mpg? Well now you are fucking with their choice of vehicles, exactly how are they going to 4x4 in places like Joshua tree national park with some puny gas saver? Don't even get them started on an aggressive US green policy.
Getting better mpg on your vehicle pales in comparison to even one less person on this planet. We need about half as many people on this planet. Even then it's likely too late anyways.
Limiting the number of children in first world countries helps immensely. One American is probably the carbon footprint equivalent of 10 people from a third world country.
We are to the point where it's time to worry about what we can do as a country to limit our carbon footprint. This finger pointing bullshit will get us nowhere but an unlivable planet.
 
May 13, 2009
12,333
612
126
First off I am glad every single poster here agreed Amazon NEED to be protected, first time ever?

I think in order to keep Earth as we knew so we can live we need to protect all the important "balancer" rather it is amazon, BC/Alaska rain forest, Indoneisa, arctic, great lake or other import regions. We can form an international treaty say those area are protected and all countries chip in for the respected loss of econ output.
You can't even get the dipshits around here to acknowledge that global warming is a real thing. Good luck getting them to vote in politicians that would send their money to a cause like that.