News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal col... by akmarinov on Friday July 16, 2021 @03:04AM (#27853700)
A big part is our greed to procreate, take out 3/4 of humanity and climate change is solved
Re:My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal col... by pelasaco on Friday July 16, 2021 @04:27AM (#27854102)
Well the OP didn't talk about wipe out people, but birth control. That can be enforced in many ways but for sure the best one is education https://blogs.worldbank.org/health/female-education-and-chil...
Re:My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal col... by headmelted on Friday July 16, 2021 @03:16AM (#27853743)
Is it though?

Even if there were an event that wiped out 75% of people, it kicks the can down the road at most 30 years due to a baby boom.

Refusing to solve the real problem is what got us in to this mess.

It’s also utterly like us as a species to think that killing 3 out of 4 people is an easier fix than just living within our means.

Re:My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal col... by boredtofears on Friday July 16, 2021 @04:53AM (#27854262)
> It’s also utterly like us as a species to think that killing 3 out of 4 people is an easier fix than just living within our means.

Individuals aren't really responsible for the mass amounts of pollutants put into the atmosphere the same way corporations are. In order for the human population to "live within it's means" at an impactful scale it would require a change of capitalist philosophy that quite obviously isn't going to change anytime soon.

Kicking the can down the road 30 years is by far the best option we have available to us at this point (not that it will happen in my lifetime).

Re:My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal col... by rbanffy on Friday July 16, 2021 @07:17AM (#27855093)
> would require a change of capitalist philosophy that quite obviously isn't going to change anytime soon.

Capitalism won’t go without a fight.

Re:My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal col... by headmelted on Friday July 16, 2021 @08:32AM (#27855571)
In order for the human population to "live within it's means" at an impactful scale it would require a change of capitalist philosophy that quite obviously isn't going to change anytime soon.

Yes.

Re:My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal col... by headmelted on Sunday July 18, 2021 @03:04AM (#27871224)
To add to this, just doing away with capitalism does not solve this problem, and creates myriad others.

Absolutely the scale of the problem is unprecedented though, but that message hasn’t changed in 50 years.

Re:My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal col... by polytely on Friday July 16, 2021 @04:14AM (#27854022)
And you think the people in the 3/4th are going to let you do that? Because I'm guessing that the 3/4th doesn't include you and your loved ones.
Re:My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal col... by tomcooks on Friday July 16, 2021 @07:06AM (#27855012)
PC probably meant "by not making more children", not the thing you assumed.
Re:My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal col... by adrianN on Friday July 16, 2021 @06:10AM (#27854676)
No, you just have about 4 times longer to become carbon neutral.
Re:My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal col... by fsloth on Friday July 16, 2021 @03:30AM (#27853814)
That's horrible and would not solve the climate change.
Re:My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal col... by boredtofears on Friday July 16, 2021 @04:55AM (#27854268)
It would not solve climate change, but really, what's horrible about it?

We live in a world of finite resources. If we, as a species, overpopulate to the point where these finite resources run dry, what are the best options?

Re:My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal col... by PeterisP on Friday July 16, 2021 @08:09AM (#27855437)
Because climate change is the only reason to do something like that - we need to solve the short term issue of pollution, because in the long run (e.g. a few centuries) overpopulation is not a problem as we're going to get a population stabilization and decrease just with current trends without a need to sacrifice anything for it; and we are getting more resource efficient over time, GDP growth has now finally (unlike all history) decoupled from growth in energy use and mineral use, etc.

Climate change is a problem that makes us need a rapid solution right now even if its costly and painful, general depletion of resources really isn't; if it wasn't for climate change then we could just let the replacement of oil to renewables happen "naturally" as oil prices slowly increase as the supply decreases, the usual market incentives would be enough to manage the resource allocation.

Finiteness of resources is not as big of an issue as it looked in 1970s (when the original Limits to Growth study was made) - with a stable or shrinking population (current situation in developed world, soon-to-arrive globally) each person's share of physical resources is the same all the while as each person's need for physical resources (except energy) is not growing now (unlike 1970s), with advances in tech meeting the same needs now requires less resources so we can continue to grow our economy within the limits of the same finite resources.

Re:My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal col... by ModernMech on Friday July 16, 2021 @09:20AM (#27855936)
We could decrease our rate of consumption/production, for one. The rate at which we're consuming is what's unsustainable. We have enough resources today to cover everyone's needs. The problem is we are producing well past that, and even still not everyone is getting what they need. Just look at how much food is thrown into dumpsters every day. Or all the energy locked up in landfills in the form of deteriorating plastics and electronics. All the junkyards filled with cars. Look at the thousands of acres of almond farms in CA's central valley. It takes a gallon of water to grow a single almond, yet the central valley is in perpetual drought. A better allocation of resources is what's needed.

We live in a society where everything is disposable, and that has a huge energy cost that we don't factor in because energy is so cheap right now. When energy is more expensive, repairing, conserving, and reusing a thing will be a better choice instead of throwing it out and buying a new one.

Re:My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal col... by tartoran on Saturday July 17, 2021 @03:25PM (#27868123)
I agree but it seems we’re in minority. I don’t see the rate of consumption decreasing willingly