Who’s gonna build that real estate with fewer people around? Where would money for higher salary come from with fewer customers?
Pollution argument is a “carbon footprint” type of bullshit to shift responsibility to general population from companies that actually do most of pollution, and violently defend their right to do so.
Communities become less highly knit because of third spaces dying, phones colonising spare time, and algorithms pushing people to have worse view of world and each other.
Increase population should increase efficiency (economies of scale, many products of intellectual labor being infinitely replicatable) - and efficiency did increase at the same time as population. It’s just that salaries didn’t.
Mental gymnastic to make worsening conditions of ordinary people somehow fault of other ordinary people.
How do you account for buildings decaying with time?
Let’s look at shorter term too while we’re at it.
Luckily, we don’t have to speculate - in Japan a lot of towns depopulate, locally due to people moving to big cities, as well as generally due to population decline.
They have increased bear attacks, car brigdes use of which is banned because they are old, but municipalities don’t even have money to demolish them, healthcare less available
We’ll make do. We’re very good at making do. Might even say the best at making do.
If our civilization is propped up on the next generation supplying us with an ever increasing population for the meat grinder, what we have is actually a planet wide ponzi scheme. We would do well to make do with less.
But I don’t see good arguments that we’re overpopulated and need downsizing in the post.
Downsizing will not increase quality of life/solve economic challenges we have. Yes, if we have to, we can “make do” with a wide range of conditions. Why do we have to?
Maybe sustainability? Population was half of it’s current in 1974 and we were already changing the climate and polluting.
Sticking it to those who exploit us, so they’d have fewer people to exploit? Maybe having to (metaphorically) downsize their yachts will be personal tragedies for them, but I don’t see it as a huge win.
But yes, all the points in the post look so apparently easily refuted (except for “tightly knit communities”, “crime” there is some space for argument there), that I must misunderstand it somehow. It’s honestly not intentional.
If it’s not too much trouble, please tell me?? I’d like to see compelling version of the argument.
Just because toxic algorithms are making people worse doesn’t mean they’re inherently good, nothing that person said implied that. But also, buddy, you seem kinda depressed, and I’m sorry for that. Most people are basically good most of the time. The vast majority of everyone wants what is best for everyone else, we just have really shitty information about each other.
Who’s gonna build that real estate with fewer people around? Where would money for higher salary come from with fewer customers? Pollution argument is a “carbon footprint” type of bullshit to shift responsibility to general population from companies that actually do most of pollution, and violently defend their right to do so. Communities become less highly knit because of third spaces dying, phones colonising spare time, and algorithms pushing people to have worse view of world and each other.
Increase population should increase efficiency (economies of scale, many products of intellectual labor being infinitely replicatable) - and efficiency did increase at the same time as population. It’s just that salaries didn’t.
Mental gymnastic to make worsening conditions of ordinary people somehow fault of other ordinary people.
Why do you need to build new real estate when there are fewer people to occupy it?
How do you account for buildings decaying with time? Let’s look at shorter term too while we’re at it. Luckily, we don’t have to speculate - in Japan a lot of towns depopulate, locally due to people moving to big cities, as well as generally due to population decline. They have increased bear attacks, car brigdes use of which is banned because they are old, but municipalities don’t even have money to demolish them, healthcare less available
We’ll make do. We’re very good at making do. Might even say the best at making do.
If our civilization is propped up on the next generation supplying us with an ever increasing population for the meat grinder, what we have is actually a planet wide ponzi scheme. We would do well to make do with less.
I’m not advocating for infinite growth.
But I don’t see good arguments that we’re overpopulated and need downsizing in the post.
Downsizing will not increase quality of life/solve economic challenges we have. Yes, if we have to, we can “make do” with a wide range of conditions. Why do we have to? Maybe sustainability? Population was half of it’s current in 1974 and we were already changing the climate and polluting. Sticking it to those who exploit us, so they’d have fewer people to exploit? Maybe having to (metaphorically) downsize their yachts will be personal tragedies for them, but I don’t see it as a huge win.
It took you all day to build a strawman and THAT is what you came up with?
I wish you specified which point you meant.
But yes, all the points in the post look so apparently easily refuted (except for “tightly knit communities”, “crime” there is some space for argument there), that I must misunderstand it somehow. It’s honestly not intentional.
If it’s not too much trouble, please tell me?? I’d like to see compelling version of the argument.
You got a source for your bold claim that humans and the world are good?
Just because toxic algorithms are making people worse doesn’t mean they’re inherently good, nothing that person said implied that. But also, buddy, you seem kinda depressed, and I’m sorry for that. Most people are basically good most of the time. The vast majority of everyone wants what is best for everyone else, we just have really shitty information about each other.
If only I could give a million upclicks to a single comment