Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This is a reminder that the carrying capacity of a healthy planet is much less than 8 billion people and radical change will be the only solution.

We could do with fewer people. In 2000 there was ~6.1 billion and the world was just fine.




>In 2000 there was ~6.1 billion and the world was just fine.

This entire comment is junk assertions based on nothing but this part is hilarious in particular.


> the carrying capacity of a healthy planet is much less than 8 billion people

Not sure what you are citing for this, but I would assume this is less than 8 billion people based on our current pollution and consumption rates.

This stat is a mind-blowing one also considering the sheer amount of empty space still available on the planet. With good resource management and terraforming you'd think this number would be a lot larger.


Most of the extinctions happened when there were less than 10m people. All the large mammals and birds got wiped out during humans hunting and gathering phase.


In 2000 people were predicting the end of the world. They didn't think it was fine then just as much as you don't think it's fine now.



Most of us are doing alright, relatively speaking.


Call me crazy, but I value 2 billion human lives above that of a few endangered bird species.


They will say our arrogance did us in at some point in the next thousand years. Humans are a virus and a blight on this planet.


You first.


Me first what?


When you say “humans are a virus and a blight on this planet”, there is an obvious implied “solution” to that. To which I retort: you first.


Certainly one issue where I'm a bit biased to being part of the problem. Observing things doesn't express a belief necessarily, though it is my opinion.


And I value 2 billions more as well.

And 2 billions more.

And...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: